GIFT  OF 
SEELEY  W.  MUDD 

and 

GEORGE  I.  COCHRAN     MEYER  ELSASSER 
DR.  JOHN  R.  HAYNES    WILLIAM  L.  HONNOLD 
JAMES  R.  MARTIN         MRS.  JOSEPH  F.  SARTORI 

to  the 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SOUTHERN  BRANCH 


JOHN  FISKE 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


4 

2 1  i  m 

L  JAN  20  1936 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 


Form  L   I 


KOAA2I2     AJflNIOS 


FUTURE    RETRIBUTION 


BY  GEORGE  W.  KING 

Pastor  of  the  Broadway  Methodist  Episcopal  Church^  Providence,  R.  I. 


It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God." — HKB.  x,  31 


NEW  YORK:  HUNT  &  EATON 

CINC/NNA  Tl:  CRANSTON  &>  STOWE 

1893 


87S9t» 


Copyright,  1891.  by 

HUNT    &    EATON, 

NEW  YORK. 


3T 
83G 


PREFACE. 


WE  are  persuaded  that  the  a  priori  method 
of  argument  is  too  much  used  on  both 
sides  of  this  question.  When  used  by  the  ortho- 
dox writer  it  is  a  bad  example  to  his  opponent, 
who  finds  an  unlimited  occasion  for  its  lise.  In 
the  present  discussion,  which  we  have  under- 
taken to  make  both  thorough  and  brief,  we  have 
appealed  to  fact,  ignoring  the  a  priori  when  in 
conflict  with  this,  and  have  thus  sought  to  be 
strictly  scientific  in  our  method.  We  have  not 
sought  novelty  for  its  own  sake,  but  the  truth  ; 
and  where  this  could  be  served  by  the  new  or 
the  old,  we  have  not  hesitated  to  accept  either. 
Subservient  to  this  aim,  we  think  will  be  found  in 
treatment  and  in  thought  sufficient  that  is  new 
to  justify  publication,  and  make  profitable  the 
perusal  of  the  present  pages.  Definiteness  of 
thought  and  statement  has  also  been  an  aim. 
Vagueness  is  too  much  the  bane  of  too  much 
theology,  and  the  present  doctrine  has  not  es- 
caped its  influence.  We  have  sought  to  be  both 


4  PREFA  CE. 

specific  and  exact.  There  has  been  no  particular 
attempt  at  rhetorical  effect.  This  may  be  legiti- 
mate in  the  treatment  of  a  subject  that  is  well 
accepted  in  the  Church;  but  not,  from  our  stand- 
point, in  the  scientific  investigation  and  expo- 
sition of  a  doctrine  so  much  in  dispute  as  the 
present  one.  It  may,  however,  be  proper  else- 
where, and  we  think  the  preacher  will  find  in  our 
treatment  facts  and  seed-thoughts  that  may  be 
properly  elaborated  in  his  public  ministrations. 
Courtesy  has  been  our  rule  toward  opponents; 
but  also  loyalty  to  truth  and  fact. 

Our  line  of  treatment,  without  being  distinctly 
specified,  has  been  Fact,  Nature,  and  Reason  ;  the 
first  embracing  chapters  i-v ;  the  second,  chap- 
ters vi  and  vii ;  the  eighth  chapter,  in  which  we 
occupy  a  quite  independent  position,  compre- 
hending our  entire  discussion  of  the  Reason, 
which  might  easily  have  been  expanded  into 
several  but  for  our  law  of  brevity. 

Among  the  works  read  and  consulted  in  the 
immediate  preparation  of  this  book  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the 
New  Testament ;  Edersheim's  Life  and  Times 
of  the  Messiah  (appendix  xix) ;  Vincent's  Word 
Studies  in  the  Netv  Testament ;  Shedd's  Dog- 
matic Theology  (vol.  ii,  pp.  667-754);  Muller's 


r  KEF  ACE.  5 

Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin ;  Dorner's  System  of 
Christian  Doctrine  (vol.  iv,  pp.  127-132  and  373- 
434.  Also,  Dorner  on  the  Future  State,  Smyth) ; 
Christian  Dogmatics,  Martensen  ;  Future  Retri- 
bution, C.  A.  Row  ;  Future  Probation  Examined, 
William  DeLoss  Love ;  Biblical  Eschatology, 
Hovey;  Is  there  Sal-cation  After  Death?  E.  D. 
Morris ;  Spirits  in  Prison,  Plumptre ;  Salvator 
Mundi,  Cox  ;  Restitution  of  All  Things,  Jukes  ; 
Life  in  Christ,  White ;  Extinction  of  Evil,  Peta- 
vel ;  What  is  of  Faith  as  to  Everlasting  Punish- 
ment ?  Pusey  ;  Eternal  Hope  and  Mercy  and 
Judgment,  Farrar ;  Is  '"Eternal"  Punishment 
Endless  ?  Whiton  ;  etc.  And  while  acknowl- 
edging our  indebtedness  to  all  of  these  sources 
for  suggestion  and  facts,  we  have,  for  the  most 
part,  pursued  an  independent  course  in  that  we 
have  at  least  sought  to  verify  for  ourselves. 

Hoping  the  book  may  serve  a  useful  purpose, 
we  commit  it  to  the  candid  attention  of  those 
to  whom  it  shall  come,  and  in  the  interest  of  the 
truth  we  have  sought  to  defend  and  expound. 

G.  W.  K. 

PROVIDENCE,  R.  I.,  March  25,  1891. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PAGE 

THE  ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT 9 

CHAPTER    II. 

OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS  OF  RESTORATION- 
ISTS 53 

CHAPTER   III. 

NEW  TESTAMENT  TERMINOLOGY  RESPECTING 
FUTURE  RETRI BUTION 115 

CHAPTER   IV. 

THE  GROUND  OF  FUTURE  ENDLESS  RETRIBU- 
TION; OR,  FOR  WHAT  THE  WICKED  ARE  PUN- 
ISHED ETERNALLY 141 

CHAPTER   V. 
THE  NUMBER  OF  THE  LOST 193 

CHAPTER   VI. 
THE  NATURE  OF  FUTURE  PUNISHMENT 209 

CHAPTER   VII. 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ANNIHILATION 217 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  REASON  OR  LAW  OF  NECESSITY  IN  FUTURE 
PUNISHMENT 247 


"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony :  if  they  speak  not  accord- 
ing to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them." — Isa. 

viii,  20. 


AI6NIOS; 

OR, 

FUTURE  RETRIBUTION 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Eternity  of  Punishment. 

rriHE  fact  of  future  retribution  simply  and  as 
J_  such  is  not  now  to  be  considered,  since  all 
writers  who  accept  the  Bible  as  a  divine  revela- 
tion are  agreed  as  to  its  reality.*  The  question 
before  us  is  the  question  of  duration  :  Is  there 
endless  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  ?  At 
this  point  there  is  much  dispute,  and  its  answer 
furnishes  the  chief  ground  of  interest  for  the 

*  It  is  seldom  in  our  day  that  we  find  a  writer,  as  Dr.  W.  E. 
Manley  in  the  Arena  for  April,  1890,  advocating  the  idea  that 
the  punishment  of  men  is  limited  to  this  life.  We  once  heard  a 
Universalist  minister,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  in  a  sermon  in 
response  to  a  lecture  by  Joseph  Cook,  in  which  Mr.  Cook  spoke 
of  the  eternal  punishment  of  Aaron  Burr  and  men  like  him,  say : 
"  After  Aaron  Burr  has  been  in  hell  ten  thousand  years,  perhaps 
he  will  be  ready  for  heaven,"  or  words  to  that  effect.  Practi- 
cally, the  opinion  of  writers  on  the  subject  is  unanimous  in 
favor  of  some  punishment  after  death. 


]0  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

whole  subject.  We  come,  therefore,  immediately 
to  it,  and  attempt  its  settlement. 

Of  course,  the  answer  to  our  inquiry  must  be 
scriptural.*  No  other  answer  is  adequate  or 
proper.  Philosophy  cannot  answer  it,  for  it  is 
outside  the  realm  of  philosophy.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  fact,  and  one  which,  if  it  is  to  be  known 
at  all,  must  be  learned  from  the  divine  declara- 
tions. We  proceed,  therefore,  to  the  biblical  or 
exegetical  consideration  of  the  doctrine.  Does 
the  Bible  teach  the  endless  future  punishment 
of  the  wicked? 

Making  our  appeal  alone  to  the  Scriptures,  we 
believe  one,  and  only  one,  answer  is  possible.  It 
is  the  affirmative.  This  we  proceed  to  prove. 

i.  The  most  direct  biblical  support  of  the 
doctrine  is  Matt,  xxv,  46:  "  And  these  shall  go 
away  into  eternal  punishment :  but  the  righteous 
into  eternal  life  "  (R.  V.). 

Except  question  were  raised  as  to  the  natural 
and  obvious  import  of  this  text  it  might  be  left 

*  We  say  "  of  course,"  not  because  every  writer  follows  this 
plan  properly  or  faithfully,  but  because  however  much  some 
ignore  it  in  practice,  all  admit  the  validity  of  it  as  a  principle  of 
procedure.  An  exception,  however,  to  this  statement  is  found 
in  the  case  of  those  who,  with  Dorner,  appeal  for  doctrine  to 
the  Scriptures  and  to  "faith,"  or  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  so- 
called  "  Christian  Consciousness."  But  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  this  doctrine  in  this  place. 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.          \\ 

to  stand  as  it  is,  as  God's  warning  against  sin, 
without  comment ;  but  since  it  is  declared  in 
certain  quarters  not  to  be  so  alarming  as  it  ap- 
pears to  the  reader  of  the  common  English  Bible, 
it  becomes  necessary  to  direct  attention  to  what 
the  language  involves. 

Perhaps  even  the  average  layman  has  already 
become  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the  words  "ever- 
lasting "  and  "  eternal  "  in  the  Authorized  Version 
are  translations  of  the  same  word  (aiumos)  in  the 
original.  This  is  made  evident  in  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion by  the  substitution  of  the  word  "  eternal  "  for 
"  everlasting  "  in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  as 
found  in  the  Authorized.  The  important  fact 
learned  here  is  that  the  duration  expressed  in  the 
one  case  must  be  expressed  also  in  the  other ;  that 
is,  whatever  the  duration  of  the  future  life  of  the 
righteous,  that  also,  so  far  as  this  text  is  concerned 
in  its  express  teaching,  must  be  the  duration  of  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked.  If  the  one  is  eternal 
in  the  sense  of  endlessness,  so  also  is  the  other.* 

*  Dr.  Farrar  tries  to  minify  the  force  of  this  simple  but  im- 
pregnable argument  by  stigmatizing  it  as  "  time-worn,"  as 
though,  other  things  being  equal,  this  did  not  strengthen  rather 
than  weaken  it.  Its  manifest  fairness  will  remain  despite  such 
unscientific  slurs. 

On  the  other  hand,  Canon  Row,  in  his  Future  Retribu- 
tion, admits  the  force  of  the  parallel,  and  limiting  the  sense  of 
in  the  one  case,  he  limits  it  also  in  the  other.  According 


12  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

2.    Matt,  xii,  31,  32:    "Therefore   I  say  unto 
you,  Every  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven 

to  him,  the  future  endless  life  of  the  righteous  is  not  revealed, 
but  is  derived  from  considerations  of  the  divine  love  and  mercy. 
He  says  (pp.  266,  267):  "I  fully  admit  that  the  word  aiuviof, 
when  united  with  Cw?,  life,  must  have  the  same  meaning  as  it 
bears  when  it  is  in  the  same  sentence  united  with  the  words 
Kofaaif  or  irVp.  But  there  is  this  difference  between  the  two 
cases.  When  the  eeon,  or  aeons,  denoted  by  the  word  aiwwof. 
are  coming  to  a  close,  all  holy  beings  will  still  be  able  to  look 
up  to  Him  who  is,  and  who  was,  and  who  is  to  come,  the 
Almighty,  as  the  unchangeable  father  of  mercies  and  the  God  of 
all  comfort,  and  as  in  his  essential  being,  love  ;  and  their 
'  abiding  in  love, '  causing  them  to  abide  in  God  and  God  in 
them,  affords  the  strongest  ground  for  trust  that  their  life  with 
God  will  never  end.  Full  well,  therefore,  may  they  be  satisfied 
during  the  aeons  of  the  future  with  living  in  that  state  of  hope 
and  trust  in  God  in  which  the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  lived 
and  died,  though  its  pages  contain  no  express  revelation  of  a 
life  to  come.  Yet,  as  we  have  seen,  not  a  few  of  the  most  en- 
lightened saints  of  that  dispensation  entertained  the  firmest 
faith,  notwithstanding  the  clouds  and  darkness  with  which  God's 
present  providences  were  enshrouded,  that  it  would  be  finally 
well  with  those  who  loved  God,  and  who  lived  in  obedience  to 
his  laws.  Why,  then,  should  not  the  inheritor  of  the  perfected 
kingdom  of  God  be  satisfied  with  the  same  assurance  as  sup- 
ported his  Jewish  brother  during  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  that 
God,  who  is  unchangeable  in  his  perfections,  will  never  desert 
them  that  love  him  throughout  all  the  ages  of  the  future,  when, 
to  use  the  words  of  the  apostle,  '  God  will  be  all  in  all  ? '  This 
is  an  assurance  on  which  we  may  rely  with  far  more  fullness  of 
conviction  than  on  a  word  which  varies  so  greatly  in  meaning  as 
the  word  aiwwoc,  '  eternal.'  " 

Such  teaching,  while  that  only  which  is  logically  tenable 
from  the  denial  that  future  endless  punishment  is  taught  in  the 
text,  is  an  example  of  the  straits  to  which  those  who  deny  this 
doctrine  are  frequently  driven. 


THE   ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.          13 

unto  men  ;  but  the  blasphemy  against  the  Spirit 
shall  not  be  forgiven.  And  whosoever  shall 
speak  a  word  against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be 
forgiven  him  ;  but  whosoever  shall  speak  against 
the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
neither  in  this  world  [marg.,  "  age  "],  nor  in  that 
which  is  to  come." 

The  parallel  passage  in  Mark  is  as  follows  : 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  All  their  sins  shall  be 
forgiven  unto  the  sons  of  men,  and  their  blas- 
phemies wherewith  soever  they  shall  blaspheme : 
but  whosoever  shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy 
Spirit  hath  never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an 
eternal  sin  :  because  they  said,  He  hath  an  un- 
clean spirit"  (chap,  iii,  28-30.  Compare  I  John 
v,  1 6.  I  do  not  take  it  that  Heb.  vi,  4-8  ;  x, 
26-29,  is  the  same  sin.) 

Evidently  these  two  passages,  being  parallel 
accounts  of  the  same  conversation  of  our  Lord, 
have  the  same  meaning,  and  cast  light  upon 
each  other.  We  have  in  them  two  negative 
statements  of  the  most  conclusive  character.  In 
Mark  the  Greek  is  OVK  K^EI  dfaaiv  elq  rbv  atoiva,  dAAd 
£vo%6$  £a~cu  aid)viov  d^aprr/fiarof.  Says  an  able 
writer  in  the  Bibliothcca  Sacra  for  January,  1889: 
"  However  plausibly  it  may  be  urged  that  aluvux; 
does  not,  in  the  Scripture  references  to  a  future 


14  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

life,  mean  '  everlasting,'  and  that  el$  rouf  al&va$ 
does  not  really  mean  '  forever,'  no  scholar  will 
undertake  to  deny  that  ov — dg  rovg  al&vag  is 
biblical  Greek  for  an  English  emphatic,  un- 
qualified never.  The  phrase  has  various  forms 
(e/f  TOV  a/wva,  elg  rovg  alcjvag,  tug  ai&vog,  etc.),  but 
they  are  all  combinations  of  the  noun  aluv  with 
some  preposition  and  with  a  foregoing  negative. 
It  always,  so  far  as  I  have  noted,  both  in  the 
Septuagint  and  in  the  .New  Testament,  answers 
either  to  the  English  '  not — forever,'  or  to  '  never.' 
In  the  former  case  it  denies  permanence  or  future 
perpetuity  to  that  which  already  exists  or  is  con- 
ceived as  existing  ;  for  example,  Job  vii,  16,  ov 
yap  el$  TOV  aiwva  tyaoiiat,  '  for  I  shall  not  live  for- 
ever;' Psa.  ciii,  9,  ovKEtg  reXog  opytadrjaeTai ,  ovde  ei£ 
rbv  aitiva  Hornet,  '  He  will  not  be  always  angry, 
neither  will  he  be  wrathful  forever.'  But  in  the 
majority  of  instances  in  biblical  Greek  it  is 
equivalent  to  never,  when  used  not  with  reference 
to  the  past  (for  example,  John  vii,  46,  ovde-irore 
tAaAT/oev  OVTGJ?  avdpuTrog,  '  Never  man  so  spake '), 
nor  to  the  present  (for  example,  i  Cor.  xiii,  8, 
77  dydnr)  ovdenoTS  7mrr«,  '  Love  never  faileth'),  but 
to  the  future,  as  in  John  iv,  14,  '  But  whosoever 
drinketh,'  etc., '  shall  never  thirst  '  (ov  ^  diijrijoei  elg 
TOV  aluva);  i  Cor.  viii,  13,  'Wherefore  if  meat 


THE  ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.         15 

maketh  my  brother  to  stumble,  I  will  never  eat 
flesh'  (R.  V.,  '  eat  no  flesh  for  evermore;'  A.  V., 
'  eat  no  flesh  while  the  world  standeth  ').  It  is 
further  to  be  observed  that  while  there  are 
various  other  Greek  words  and  phrases  which 
answer  to  our  emphatic  future  never,  this  of 
which  we  are  speaking  is  one  of  the  most 
frequent  in  the  New  Testament.  In  order  to 
ascertain  its  meaning  in  Hellenistic  Greek  it  is 
not  necessary  to  fix  the  various  significations  of 
the  term  aluv,  considered  simply  as  a  substantive  ; 
the  phrase  is  one  concerning  which  no  doubt,  at 
least  in  the  majority  of  passages,  can  be  raised. 
Now  this  is  the  term  which  we  find  in  that  im- 
pressive warning  of  our  Saviour  to  his  antago- 
nists recorded  in  Mark  iii,  29,  '  But  whosoever 
shall  blaspheme  against  the  Holy  Spirit  hath 
never  forgiveness,  but  is  guilty  of  an  eternal 
sin  '  (OVK  e^ei  atyeaiv  elg  rbv  aiwi>a,  aXXa  Ivo^o^  lariv 
ald)viov  dfjuprijuaro^').  In  this  one  passage,  at  least, 
we  are  compelled  to  recognize  an  unequivocal, 
emphatic,  absolute  never" 

Likewise,  whatever  the  phrase  ovre  KV  TOUTGJ  TGJ 
aitivi  ovrs  tv  TGJ  fjieXXovTi  (''  neither  in  this  world, 
nor  in  that  which  is  to  come  ")  in  Matthew  may 
signify,  in  the  way  of  inference,  as  to  the  possible 
restoration  in  another  life  of  those  who  do  not 


16  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

commit  this  sin,  clearly  for  it  there  will  be  no 
forgiveness.* 

3.  Rev.  xx,  10-15  :  "  And  the  devil  that  de- 
ceived them  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone,  where  are  also  the  beast  and  the  false 
prophet ;  and  they  shall  be  tormented  day  and 
night  for  ever  and  ever. 

"  And  I  saw  a  great  white  throne,  and  him  that 
sat  upon  it,  from  whose  face  the  earth  and  the 
heaven  fled  away  ;  and  there  was  found  no  place 
for  them.  And  I  saw  the  dead,  the  great  and 
the  small,  standing  before  the  throne  ;  and  books 

*  Some  (among  them  Dorner)  try  to  evade  the  force  of  this 
argument  by  suggesting  that,  while  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  never  forgiveness,  yet  the  penalty  may  come  to  an 
end,  and  restoration  even  in  this  case  take  place.  Well  might  it 
be  asked,  in  view  of  interpretations  of  this  character  frequently 
found  in  the  writings  of  Universalists,  "whether  there  is  any 
way,  in  which  Almighty  God  could  have  expressed  it  [the 
eternity  of  punishment],  which  they  would  have  accepted  as 
meaning  it."'  Besides,  in  this  case  some  would  be  saved  without 
the  atonement.  Their  salvation  would  be  by  paying  the 
penalty,  not  through  Christ.  Exegesis  that  is  put  to  such  shifts 
may  well  be  regarded  unsound. 

Dorner  suggests,  also,  that  "  the  passages  concerning  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  say  nothing  of  definite  persons  who  have 
committed  this  sin.  Of  themselves,  therefore,  they  leave  the 
question  unanswered,  what  men,  and  whether  any  men,  reach 
this  final  goal  of  criminality,  which  is  set  before  the  eyes  as  a 
warning.  Just  so  the  Revelation  of  John  does  not  say  who,  or 
that  a  man  will  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  ;  the  hypothetical 
form  is  rather  chosen  :  '  If  one  is  not  inscribed  in  the  book  of 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.          17 

were  opened  :  and  another  book  was  opened, 
which  is  the  book  of  life  :  and  the  dead  were 
judged  out  of  the  things  which  were  written  in 
the  books,  according  to  their  works.  And  the 
sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it ;  and  death 
and  Hades  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them  : 
and  they  were  judged  every  man  according  to 
their  works.  And  death  and  Hades  were  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire.  This  is  the  second  death, 
even  the  lake  of  fire.  And  if  any  was  not  found 
written  in  the  book  of  life,  he  was  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire."  (Compare  Rev.  xiv,  9-11;  xix, 
20;  xxi,  8.) 

Whatever  there    may  be   that   is  figurative  in 

life,'  '  if  one  worships  the  beast,  he  shall  drink  the  cup  of  wrath,' 
all  which  affirms  nothing  of  persons,  but  of  the  principle."  But 
this,  likewise,  is  a  pure  evasion  of  the  solemn  teaching  contained 
in  these  passages  of  Scripture. 

Since  writing  the  last  paragraph  of  this  note  we  have  met  still 
another  device,  equally  untenable,  by  which  the  fearful  import 
of  this  passage  is  sought  to  be  avoided.  It  seeks  to  show  that 
"  deliverance  "  from  this  sin  may  possibly  be  had  through  repent- 
ance (Unto  the  Uttermost,  James  M.  Campbell,  p.  125).  We 
would  ask  :  (i)  Is  there  deliverance  from  any  sin  except  through 
repentance  ?  And  if  not,  wherein,  on  this  supposition,  lies  the 
difference  between  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  sin 
against  the  "Son  of  man?"  (2)  Is  this  compatible  with  the 
words  "  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him  [not  '  so  long  as  he  con- 
tinues in  an  unyielding,  unrepentant  state,'  but  plainly],  neither 
in  this  world,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come?"  (3)  What  is 
"deliverance"  from  this  sin  without  forgiveness,  which  shall 
never  be  exercised  ? 
2 


IQ  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION 

these  verses,  if  they  mean  any  thing  the  follow- 
ing points  are  clear:  (i)  The  devil  is  to  be  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire,  and  his  punishment  is  to 
last  "  for  ever  and  ever."  (2)  After  the  resurrec- 
tion the  dead  are  to  be  judged  "  according  to 
their  works."  (3)  Those  whose  names  are  not 
found  written  in  the  book  of  life  are  to  be  cast 
into  the  lake  of  fire. 

Taken  in  connection  with  Matt,  xxv,  31-46,  the 
evidence  for  the  endlessness  of  the  punishment 
of  the  wicked  furnished  here  becomes  as  convinc- 
ing as  language  can  very  well  make  it.* 

4.  Mark  ix,  43-48  :  "  And  if  thy  hand  cause 
thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off:  it  is  good  for  thee 
to  enter  into  life  maimed,  rather  than  having  thy 
two  hands  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  unquencha- 
ble fire.  And  if  thy  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble, 
cut  it  off:  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life 

*  If  the  reader  will  carefully  compare  the  two  passages  he 
will  be  impressed  with  the  following  points  of  agreement  and 
parallel:  i.  Both  concern  the  general  judgment.  2.  The  res- 
urrection is  in  both  passages  represented  as  having  taken  place. 
3.  Those  whose  names  were  not  found  written  in  the  book  of 
life  (the  "  goats  "  of  Matthew)  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  pre- 
pared for  the  devil  and  his  angels  (Matt.,  verse  41 ;  Rev.,  verses  10, 
15).  4.  The  two  phrases,  paaavicftyaovTai  .  .  .  eif  roif  aluvaf 
ruv  aluvuv  (Rev.,  verse  10)  and  xd^aatv  aluviov  (Matt.,  verse  46), 
seem  to  be  identical  in  signification.  The  force  of  this  last  parallel 
will  be  felt  in  connection  with  the  general  parallel  of  the  entire 
passages. 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         ]p 

halt,  rather  than  having  thy  two  feet  to  be  cast 
into  hell.  And  if  thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stum- 
ble, cast  it  out :  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  with  one  eye,  rather  than 
having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  ;  where  their 
worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched." 
(Compare  Matt,  iii,  12  ;  v,  29,  30;  xviii,  8,  9.) 

In  connection  with  this  passage  two  points  of 
interest  demand  brief  attention  :  (i)  The  first  is 
concerning  the  word  "  hell."  The  alternate 
reading  in  the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version  is 
"  Gehenna."  This  word  (yeevva)  comes  from  the 
Hebrew  Din  ^  (go  hinnom),  literally,  "  valley  of 
Hinnom."  (Some  would  translate  "  valley  of 
lamentation.")  The  valley  of  Hinnom,  also 
called  fish  ("  Topheth  "),  once  a  beautiful  valley, 
became  the  place  of  the  worship  of  the  fire-god 
Molech,  to  whom  human  sacrifices  were  offered. 
After  Josiah  "  defiled  "  the  place,  "  that  no  man 
might  make  his  son  or  his  daughter  to  pass 
through  the  fire  to  Molech,"  it  became  the  place 
where  the  bodies  of  criminals,  the  carcasses  of 
animals,  and  all  manner  of  filth  were  cast.  Here, 
literally,  the  worm  never  died,  and  to  prevent 
pestilence  a  fire  was  kept  burning  perpetually. 
From  these  facts  the  place  became  the  symbol 
of  the  place  of  future  punishment,  the  latter 


20  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION: 

receiving  the  name  of  the  former.  And  so  in  the 
time  of  Christ  Gehenna  was  every-where  among 
the  Jews  understood  to  signify  the  place  of  tor- 
ment in  Sheol,  or  Hades.  (See  Word  Studies  in 
the  New  Testament,  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  vol.  i, 
page  40,  and  Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament,  Thayer,  page  ill.)  (2)  In  verse  43  is 
the  expression  "  unquenchable  fire  "  (TO  rrvp  TO 
ei(7/3eo-Tov) ;  in  verse  48,  "  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched  "  (KOI  TO  -rrvp  ov  a$6wv-ai).  In  the  par- 
allel account  in  Matt,  xviii,  8,  9,  the  expression 
is  TO  TTvp  TO  diuviov,  "  the  eternal  fire."  These 
expressions,  remembered  in  connection  with 
other  teachings  of  Christ,  furnish  terrible  proof 
of  the  reality  of  the  doctrine  we  are  considering. 

It  avails  nothing  to  say  that  they  do  not 
"  necessarily  "  teach  endless  suffering.  Alone 
they  may  not  be  thought  sufficient  to  prove  the 
doctrine,  but  in  the  light  of  other  sayings  of 
Christ  they  have  no  doubtful  meaning. 

5.  Matt,  xxvi,  24:  "The  Son  of  man  goeth, 
even  as  it  is  written  of  him  :  but  woe  unto  that 
man  through  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed  ! 
good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been 
born." 

This  passage  never  could  have  been  uttered 
by  Christ  with  the  knowledge  in  this  case  of 


THE   ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.         21 

final  restoration ;  for  if  Judas  is  to  be  saved 
some  time  in  the  future,  no  matter  how  far  dis- 
tant the  day  may  be,  he  will  still  have  an  eter- 
nity of  blessedness  reserved  for  him,  and  in  view 
of  this,  despite  the  long  season  of  punishment,  it 
could  only  be  said :  "  It  was  good  for  him  that 
he  was  born."  No  amount  of  temporal  punish- 
ment can  outweigh  the  "  good  "  of  eternal  life.* 
6.  Jude  5-16:  "  Now  I  desire  to  put  you  in 
remembrance,  though  ye  know  all  things  once 
for  all,  how  that  the  Lord,  having  saved  a  people 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  afterward  destroyed 
them  that  believed  not.  And  angels  which  kept 
not  their  own  principality,  but  left  their  proper 
habitation,  he  hath  kept  in  everlasting  bonds 
under  darkness  unto  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day.  Even  as  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  cities 
about  them,  having  in  like  manner  with  these 
given  themselves  over  to  fornication,  and  gone 
after  strange  flesh,  are  set  forth  as  an  example, 
suffering  the  punishment  of  eternal  fire.  Yet  in 
like  manner  these  also  in  their  dreamings  defile 
the  flesh,  and  set  at  naught  dominion,  and  rail 
at  dignities.  But  Michael  the  archangel,  when 

*  The  argument  here  is  only  an  inference,  we  know,  but  it  is 
nevertheless  very  strong.  Dorner  calls  it  the  "  strongest  "  on 
the  orthodox  side. 


22  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

contending  with  the  devil  he  disputed  about  the 
body  of  Moses,  durst  not  bring  against  him  a 
railing  judgment,  but  said,  The  Lord  rebuke 
thee.  But  these  rail  at  whatsoever  things  they 
know  not :  and  what  they  understand  natu- 
rally, like  the  creatures  without  reason,  in  these 
things  are  they  destroyed.  Woe  unto  them  !  for 
they  went  in  the  way  of  Cain,  and  ran  riotously 
in  the  error  of  Baalam  for  hire,  and  perished  in 
the  gainsaying  of  Korah.  These  are  they  who 
are  hidden  rocks  in  your  love-feasts  when  they 
feast  with  you,  shepherds  that  without  fear  feed 
themselves  ;  clouds  without  water,  carried  along 
by  winds;  autumn  trees  without  fruit,  twice 
dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots  ;  wild  waves  of 
the  sea,  foaming  out  their  own  shame  ;  wander- 
ing stars,  for  whom  the  blackness  of  darkness 
hath  been  reserved  forever.  And  to  these  also 
Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam,  prophesied,  say- 
ing, Behold,  the  Lord  came  with  ten  thousands 
of  his  holy  ones,  to  execute  judgment  upon  all, 
and  to  convict  all  the  ungodly  of  all  their  works 
of  ungodliness  which  they  have  ungodly  wrought, 
and  of  all  the  hard  things  which  ungodly  sinners 
have  spoken  against  him.  These  are  murmur- 
ers,  complainers,  walking  after  their  lusts  (and 
their  mouth  speaketh  great  swelling  words), 


THE   ETERNJTY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         23 

showing  respect  of  persons  for  the  sake  of  ad- 
vantage." (Compare  2  Pet.  ii.) 

In  this  passage  several  things  are  given  :  (i) 
The  Israelites  who  believed  not,  and  the  angels 
"which  kept  not  their  own  principality,"  and  the 
inhabitants  of  the  cities  of  the  plain  are  exhib- 
ited as  examples  of  suffering  punishment  for 
those  of  whom  Jude"  is  speaking.  (2)  Certain 
persons  in  the  early  Church  are  threatened  with 
like  punishment.  (3)  The  Israelites  were  "  de- 
stroyed "  (aTTuteaev) ;  the  angels  "  hath  he  kept 
in  everlasting  (didioig}  bonds  under  darkness  unto 
the  judgment  of  the  great  day;"  Sodom  and  the 
neighboring  cities  "  are  set  forth  as  an  example, 
suffering  the  punishment  of  eternal  fire  "  (rrvpbs 
afcovt'ou).  The  margin  of  the  Revised  Version 
has  for  the  last,  "  as  an  example  of  eternal  fire 
suffering  punishment."  For  the  wicked  ones  of 
whom  Jude  writes  has  been  reserved  the  "  black- 
ness of  darkness  "  "  forever  "  (eJ?  atdiva). 

Does  Jude  mean  to  teach  the  same  punish- 
ment in  all  these  cases  under  different  language? 
Is  the  "  destruction  "  of  the  Israelites,  and  the 
"  reservation  "  of  the  angels,  and  the  "  suffering  " 
of  the  Sodomites,  and  the  "  blackness  of  dark- 
ness forever  "  reserved  for  those  of  whom  he 
\vrites,  the  same  punishment  in  each  case?  Our 


24  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

answer  to  this  cannot  be  dogmatic.  The  case  of 
the  cities  of  the  plain  is  made  uncertain  by  the 
alternate  reading.  Perhaps,  following  the  mar- 
ginal reading,  the  temporal  destruction  of  these 
cities  is  referred  to  as  illustrative  only  of  future 
punishment.  Following  the  text,  it  might  seem 
that  their  eternal  punishment  is  involved.  In 
the  case  of  the  Israelites  who  believed  not,  we 
suppose  their  temporal  destruction  (Num.  xiv, 
especially  verses  II,  29,  32)  is  referred  to. 
Whether  or  not  more  is  involved  in  this  case 
also  we  do  not  undertake  to  say.  As  to  the 
angels,  no  doubt  can  be  entertained  as  to  the 
reference.  They  are  in  some  sense  bound,  and 
in  this  condition  await  the  judgment.  As  to 
their  fate  at  and  after  the  judgment,  other  Script- 
ures tell  us  (Rev.  xx,  10;  Matt,  xxv,  41).  The 
fate  of  the  last  class  can  be  no  other  than  that 
spoken  of  elsewhere  concerning  the  wicked  ;  and 
when  it  is  thus  associated  with  the  end  of  the 
lost  angels,  *  the  meaning  can  only  be  the  same 
as  that  taught  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament. 
This  we  have  seen,  and  will  further  see,  is  ever- 
lasting punishment. 

*  We  call  attention  again  to  the  fact  that  the  end  of 
devils  and  wicked  men  is  the  same  in  the  New  Testament. 
(Compare  Rev.  xx,  10,  15,  with  Matt,  xxv,  41.  ) 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         05 

7.  There  is  a  passage  that  is  frequently  quoted 
to  prove  the  final  restoration  of  the  lost,  but 
that  is  so  manifestly  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  punishment  that  we  place  it  here  among 
the  proofs  of  the  doctrine.  It  will  be  considered 
more  fully,  however,  when  we  come  to  notice 
the  arguments  advanced  in  favor  of  Univer- 
salism.  The  passage  we  refer  to  is  i  Cor.  xv, 
24-26 : 

"  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  deliver 
up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father  ;  when 
he  shall  have  abolished  all  rule  and  all  authority 
and  power.  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put 
all  his  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy 
that  shall  be  abolished  is  death." 

The  points  to  be  noted  are  :  (i)  The  end  of 
the  mediatorial  reign  of  Christ  follows  the  de- 
struction of  the  "  last  enemy,"  and  (2)  the  last 
enemy  to  be  abolished  is  physical  death  at  and 
by  the  resurrection.  Now,  remember  in  connec- 
tion with  this,  that  the  coming  (parousia)  of 
Christ  and  the  resurrection  are  followed  by  the 
judgment  (Matt,  xxv,  31  ;  Rev.  xx,  12-14;  xxii» 
10-12),  and  that,  according  to  Matt,  xxv,  31-46, 
and  other  Scriptures,  the  "  aeonian  punishment  " 
is  pronounced  after  the  "  last  enemy,"  death, 
has  been  abolished,  and  the  passage  furnishes 


26  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

an  argument  for  eternal  punishment  that  is  un- 
answerable. 

We  urge  these  facts  as  worthy  all  considera- 
tion. If  the  "  last  enemy  "  to  be  abolished  is 
physical  death,  and  the  noAaatg  aluviog  of  Matthew 
follows  this  destruction,  then  the  thought  of  the 
"  second  death "  being  abolished  is  absolutely 
excluded.  The  last  enemy  is  abolished  in  the 
resurrection,  and  before  the  KoXacnq  atomof,  or  6 
ddvarog  6  devrepo^,  is  awarded.  (Compare  also 
John  v,  28,  29.) 

8.  Another  proof  of  the  endlessness  of  future 
punishment  is  furnished  in  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  reveal  what  Dr.  Tayler  Lewis 
appropriately  calls  the  "  aspect  of  finality."  In 
Lange's  Commentary  on  Ecclesiastes  he  says : 
"  It  may  be  thought  that  this  view  of  D^>iy  and 
aiuv  as  having  plurals,  and  therefore  not  in  them- 
selves denoting  absolute  endlessness,  or  infinity 
of  time,  must  weaken  the  force  of  certain  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament,  especially  of  that 
most  solemn  sentence,  Matt,  xxv,  46.  This, 
however,  comes  from  a  wrong  view  of  what  con- 
stitutes the  real  power  of  the  impressive  lan- 
guage there  employed.  The  preacher,  in  con- 
tending with  the  Universalist,  or  Restorationist, 
would  commit  an  error,  and,  it  may  be,  suffer  a 


THE   ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.         27 

failure  in  his  argument  should  he  lay  the  whole 
stress  of  it  on  the  etymological  or  historical  sig- 
nificance of  the  words,  atwv,  aluvtog,  and  attempt 
to  prove  that,  of  themselves,  they  necessarily 
carry  the  meaning  of  endless  duration.  There 
is  another  method  by  which  the  conclusion  is 
reached  in  a  much  more  impressive  and  cavil- 
silencing  manner.  It  is  by  insisting  on  that 
dread  aspect  of  finality  .  that  appears  not  in 
single  words  merely,  but  in  the  power  and 
vividness  of  the  language  taken  as  a  whole  " 
(page  48). 

Some  of  the  passages  that  have  this  "  dread 
aspect  "  are  the  following  : 

''  Let  both  grow  together  until  the  harvest : 
and  in  the  time  of  the  harvest  I  will  say  to  the 
reapers,  Gather  up  first  the  tares,  and  bind  them 
in  bundles  to  burn  them  :  but  gather  the  wheat 
into  my  barn  "  (Matt,  xiii,  30). 

"  Again,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto 
a  net,  that  was  cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered 
of  every  kind  :  which,  when  it  was  filled,  they 
drew  up  on  the  beach  ;  and  they  sat  down,  and 
gathered  the  good  into  vessels,  but  the  bad  they 
cast  away.  So  shall  it  be  in  the  end  of  the 
world  :  the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever 
the  wicked  from  among  the  righteous,  and  shall 


28  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be 
the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth  "  (Matt,  xiii, 

47-50). 

"  But  when  the  king  came  in  to  behold  the 
guests,  he  saw  there  a  man  which  had  not  on  a 
wedding-garment :  and  he  saith  unto  him,  Friend, 
how  earnest  thou  in  hither  not  having  a  wedding- 
garment  ?  And  he  was  speechless.  Then  the 
king  said  to  the  servants,  Bind  him  hand  and 
foot,  and  cast  him  out  into  the  outer  darkness  ; 
there  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth 
(Matt,  xxii,  11-13). 

"Then  shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  likened 
unto  ten  virgins,  which  took  their  lamps,  and 
went  forth  to  meet  the  bridegroom.  And  five 
of  them  were  foolish,  and  five  were  wise.  For 
the  foolish,  when  they  took  their  lamps,  took 
no  oil  with  them  :  but  the  wise  took  oil  in  their 
vessels  with  their  lamps.  Now  while  the  bride- 
groom tarried,  they  all  slumbered  and  slept.  But 
at  midnight  there  is  a  cry,  Behold,  the  bride- 
groom !  Come  ye  forth  to  meet  him.  Then 
all  those  virgins  arose,  and  trimmed  their  lamps. 
And  the  foolish  said  unto  the  wise,  Give  us  of 
your  oil;  for  our  lamps  are  going  out.  But  the 
wise  answered,  saying,  Peradventure  there  will 
not  be  enough  for  us  and  you  :  go  ye  rather  to 


7 HE  ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.         29 

them  that  sell,  and  buy  for  yourselves.  And 
while  they  went  away  to  buy,  the  bridegroom 
came  ;  and  they  that  were  ready  went  in  with 
him  to  the  marriage  feast:  and  the  door  was 
shut.  Afterward  come  also  the  other  virgins, 
saying,  Lord,  Lord,  open  to  us.  But  he  answered 
and  said,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  know  you  not. 
Watch  therefore,  for  ye  know  not  the  day  nor 
the  hour  "  (Matt,  xxv,  1-13).* 

"  For  it  is  as  when  a  man,  going  into  another 
country,  called  his  own  servants,  and  delivered 

*  An  interesting  piece  of  "  wriggling,"  to  use  one  of  Mr.  Dar- 
win's terms,  of  the  exegetical  type,  is  given  in  remarks  on  this 
parable  by  C.  A.  Row  (Future  Retribution).  He  comments 
thus  :  "  The  virgins  who  came  prepared  with  a  sufficient  supply 
of  oil  for  their  lamps  enter  at  once  with  the  bridegroom  into  the 
marriage  feast,  on  which  the  door  is  shut.  Afterward  the  five 
foolish  ones,  having  obtained  the  necessary  supply  of  oil,  pray 
that  the  door  might  be  opened  to  give  them  admittance,  but  the 
bridegroom  replies  that  he  knows  them  not.  The  moral  of  the 
parable  is  drawn  by  our  Lord  himself :  '  Watch,  therefore,  for 
ye  know  not  the  day  nor  the  hour.'  Nothing  is  said  respecting 
the  subsequent  fate  of  the  foolish  virgins,  who  are  described  as 
returning  after  they  had  procured  the  necessary  supply  of  oil, 
except  that,  notwithstanding  their  earnest  entreaties,  they  were 
excluded  from  the  marriage  feast.  The  advice  given  them  to 
purchase  the  needful  oil,  and  the  fact  that  they  succeeded  in 
doing  so,  proves  that  it  is  impossible  to  erect  a  dogma  on  the 
mere  imagery  of  a  parable  "  (pages  260,  261).  It  might  be  per- 
missible, following  this  eminent  example,  to  suggest  that  per- 
haps the  virgins  went  into  the  marriage  feast  after  it  was  over! 
Exegesis  of  this  type  is  no  doubt  edifying  to  a  certain  class  of 
writers. 


30  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

unto  them  his  goods.  And  unto  one  he  gave 
five  talents,  to  another  two,  to  another  one  ;  to 
each  according  to  his  several  ability ;  and  he 
went  on  his  journey.  Straightway  he  that  re- 
ceived the  five  talents  went  and  traded  with 
them,  and  made  other  five  talents.  In  like  man- 
ner he  also  that  received  the  two  gained  other  two. 
But  he  that  received  the  one  went  away  and 
digged  in  the  earth,  and  hid  his  lord's  money. 
Now  after  a  long  time  the  lord  of  those  servants 
cometh,  and  maketh  a  reckoning  with  them. 
And  he  that  received  the  five  talents  came  and 
brought  other  five  talents,  saying,  Lord,  thou 
deliveredst  unto  me  five  talents  :  lo,  I  have 
gained  other  five  talents.  His  lord  said  unto 
him,  Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant : 
thou  hast  been  faithful  over  a  few  things,  I  will 
set  thee  over  many  things  :  enter  thou  into  the 
joy  of  thy  lord.  And  he  also  that  received  the 
two  talents  came  and  said,  Lord,  thou  deliveredst 
unto  me  two  talents :  lo,  I  have  gained  other 
two  talents.  His  lord  said  unto  him,  Well  done, 
good  and  faithful  servant  ;  thou  hast  been  faith- 
ful over  a  few  things,  I  will  set  thee  over  many 
things:  enter  thou  into  the  joy  of  thy  lord.  And 
he  also  that  had  received  the  one  talent  came 
and  said,  Lord,  I  knew  thee  that  thou  art  a  hard 


THE   ETERNITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.         31 

man,  reaping  where  thou  didst  not  sow,  and 
gathering  where  thou  didst  not  scatter:  and  I 
was  afraid,  and  went  away  and  hid  thy  talent  in 
the  earth :  lo,  thou  hast  thine  own.  But  his 
lord  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  wicked 
and  slothful  servant,  thou  knewest  that  I  reap 
where  I  sowed  not,  and  gather  where  I  did  not 
scatter;  thou  oughtest  therefore  to  have  put 
my  money  to  the  bankers,  and  at  my  coming 
I  should  have  received  back  mine  own  with  in- 
terest. Take  ye  away  therefore  the  talent  from 
him,  and  give  it  unto  him  that  hath  the  ten  tal- 
ents. For  unto  every  one  that  hath  shall  be 
given,  and  he  shall  have  abundance :  but  from 
him  that  hath  not,  even  that  which  he  hath 
shall  be  taken  away.  And  cast  ye  out  the  un- 
profitable servant  into  the  outer  darkness  :  there 
shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth " 
(Matt,  xxv,  14-30). 

"  For  what  doth  it  profit  a  man,  to  gain  the 
whole  world,  and  forfeit  his  life  ?  For  what 
should  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  life  ? 
(Mark  viii,  36,  37). 

"  And  beside  all  this,  between  us  and,  you  there 
is  a  great  gulf  fixed,  that  they  which  would  pass 
from  hence  to  you  may  not  be  able,  and  that  none 
may  cross  over  from  thence  to  us  "  (Luke  xvi,  26). 


32  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

"He  said  therefore  again  unto  them,  I  go  away, 
and  ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  die  in  your  sin  : 
whither  I  go,  ye  cannot  come  "  (John  viii,  21). 

And  verse  24  :  "I  said  therefore  unto  you, 
that  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  :  for  except  ye  be- 
lieve that  1  am  he,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins." 

"  For  the  land  which  hath  drunk  the  rain  that 
cometh  oft  upon  it,  and  bringeth  forth  herbs  meet 
for  them  for  whose  sake  it  is  also  tilled,  receiv- 
eth  blessing  from  God  :  but  if  it  beareth  thorns 
and  thistles,  it  is  rejected  and  nigh  unto  a  curse ; 
whose  end  is  to  be  burned  "  (Heb.  vi,  7,  8). 

"  For  if  we  sin  willfully  after  that  we  have 
received  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  there 
remaineth  no  more  a  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a 
certain  fearful  expectation  of  judgment,  and  a 
fierceness  of  fire  which  shall  devour  the  adversa- 
ries "  (Heb.  x,  26,  27). 

In  view  of  all  such  passages,  is  it  not  surprising 
that  some  will  persist  in  reading  into  the  Script- 
ures the  delusive  hope  of  final  restoration?* 

*This  argument  Whiton  (Is  Eternal  Punishment  Endless? 
p.  33),  thinks  is  the  "  strongest  apparent  implication  of  the  end- 
lessness of  future  punishment."  He  says  further:  "All  such  pas- 
sages readily  favor  the  doctrine  of  the  endlessness  of  that  state 
to  which  they  refer,"  and  saves  himself  from  the  positive  doc- 
trine by  concluding:  "  The  endlessness  of  future  punishment  is 
not  the  only  theory  that  will  agree  with  the  language  of  despair 
which  the  texts  now  before  us  employ  "  (p.  34). 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         33 

9.  The  doctrine  \ve  are  considering  is  still 
further  proved  by  those  passages  of  Scripture 
which  promise  certain  final  blessings  to  the 
righteous  only.  For  example,  the  "  righteous  " 
are  to  go  into  "  eternal  life  "  (Matt,  xxv,  46). 
Now,  if  the  wicked  are  to  be  finally  restored, 
after  an  indefinite  aeonian  punishment,  they,  too, 
will  at  some  time  go  into  aeonian  life.  But  is  not 
this  excluded  by  the  very  designation  of  the 
righteous  as  the  inheritors  of  this  privilege? 
Again,  he  that  "  overcometh  "  is  to  "  eat  of  the 
tree  of  life  "  (Rev.  ii,  7).  Shall  we  contradict  the 
Scriptures  and  say  whether  or  not  men  overcome 
they  shall  finally  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life? 
Again,  to  the  overcomer  is  the  promise  that  his 
name  shall  not  be  blotted  "out  of  the  book  of 
life  "  (Rev.  iii,  5).  Is  it  not  a  fair  inference  that 
those  who  do  not  overcome  shall  have  their 
names  blotted  out  ?  Where  is  the  right  to 
assert  that  they  shall  again  be  inserted  after 
ages  of  punishment?  Once  more,  to  the  perse- 
cuted followers  of  our  Lord  is  the  exhortation 
with  promise,  "  Be  thou  faithful  unto  death,  and 
I  will  give  thee  the  crown  of  life  "  (Rev.  ii,  10). 
Are  the  unfaithful  also,  at  some  time,  to  wear  the 
"  crown  of  life?  " 

Such  passages  of  Scripture,  with  their   exclu- 
3 


34  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

sive  nature,  fully  warrant  the  inference  we  draw 
from  them.  They  are  clear  cases  of  the  law 
in  logic  known  as  the  "  exclusive  "  proposition. 
To  say,  "  Some  men  are  honest,"  involves 
the  inference  that  some  are  not  honest.  So 
when  the  Scriptures  designate  a  certain  class 
as  subjects  of  the  divine  promises  and  rewards, 
by  necessary  inference  the  opposite  class  is  ex- 
cluded from  the  same  privileges.  (Examine 
also  John  iii,  15,  16;  iv,  13,  14;  vi,  47,  54-58, 
etc.) 

10.  Another  proof  of  the  everlastingness  of 
the  wicked's  doom  is  furnished  in  those  Script- 
ures which  are  by  some  used  to  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  annihilation.  Concerning  this  doctrine 
we  have  something  to  say  further  on  (chap.  vii). 
For  the  present  we  simply  affirm  that  all  such 
passages  preclude  the  idea  of  final  restoration. 
We  give  a  few  examples: 

"  For  if  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die  " 
(^jvUere  dnodvijoKeiv)  (Rom.  viii,  13).  "  The  wages 
of  sin  is  death  "  (ddvaro^  (Rom.  vi,  23).  "  But 
rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy  (a-noteaai) 
both  soul  and  body  in  hell"  [marg.,  "  Gehenna  "] 
(Matt,  x,  28).  "  For  wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad 
is  the  way,  that  leadeth  to  destruction  (els  ryv 
(Matt,  vii,  13).  "  Who  shall  suffer  pun- 


THE   ETERKITY  OF  PUNISHMENT.         35 


ishment,  even  eternal  destruction  (o/ieOpov 
from  the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of 
his  might  "  (2  Thess.  i,  9).  "  For  he  that  so\veth 
unto  his  own  flesh  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  cor- 
ruption (<t>6opdv)  ;  but  he  that  soweth  unto  the 
spirit  shall  of  the  spirit  reap  eternal  life  "  (Gal. 
vi,  8). 

On  this  subject  Edward  White,  who  himself 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  annihilation,  says  : 
"  Surely  these  are  not  the  words  (a7rwA«a, 
0dvarof,  etc.)  which  would  naturally  occur  to  a 
writer  desiring  to  convey  the  idea  of  universal 
salvation."  Again  :  "  As  a  theory  to  be  estab- 
lished by  criticism,  Universalism  is  based  on 
special  pleading  ;  while  as  a  delusive  prospect  to 
be  set  before  mankind  it  is  likely,  as  recent 
American  experience  has  shown,  to  ruin  innu- 
merable souls,  who  will  neglect  the  'day  ''of 
salvation  for  the  '  fool's  to-morrow,'  which  never 
arrives  "  (Life  in  Christ,  pp.  446,  448).  Also, 
another  writer,  who  teaches  the  doctrine  of  an- 
nihilation, although  from  a  different  stand-point 
from  that  of  Mr.  White,  says  :  "  The  Universal- 
ist  endeavors  to  evade  this  [the  writer's  conclu- 
sion of  annihilation]  by  affirming  that  when  the 
Scriptures  threaten  the  finally  impenitent  with 
destruction,  or  some  kindred  term,  the  thiiw 


36  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

intended  is  the  destruction  of  the  sin,  but  the  re- 
covery of  the  sinner."  He  thinks  the  principle 
of  interpretation  which  assigns  to  such  terms 
this  construction  "  non-natural,"  and  says : 
"  Surely  it  is  a  mode  of  dealing  with  language 
which  no  one  would  adopt,  unless  compelled  by 
the  exigencies  of  a  theory "  (C.  A.  Row,  ut 
supra,  pp.  386,  387). 

We  concur  with  these  writers  thus  far,  and 
affirm  that  these  passages  utterly  preclude  the 
idea  of  final  universal  restoration. 

1 1.  Again,  we  find  proof  of  the  doctrine  in  the 
many  passages  which  assert  an  unqualified  nega- 
tive in  relation  to  the  lot  of  the  wicked.  This 
appears  in  several  of  the  passages  already  given  ; 
but  we  repeat  one  or  two  here  and  add  others  in 
order  to  give  the  proper  emphasis  to  this  im- 
portant thought.  "  But  whosoever  shall  speak 
against  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven 
him  "  (Matt,  xii,  32).  "  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and 
shall  die  in  your  sin  :  whither  I  go,  ye  cannot 
come  "  (John  viii,  21).  Other  Scriptures  that 
have  not  been  given  are :  "  For  I  say  unto  you; 
that  none  of  those  men  which  were  bidden  shall 
taste  of  my  supper"  (Luke  xiv,  24),  and  "  He 
that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  eternal  life ;  but 
he  that  obeyeth  [marg.,  '  believeth ']  not  the  Son 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         37 

shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth 
on  him  "  (John  iii,  36). 

All  such  passages  unqualifiedly  preclude  the 
hope  of  life  for  those  included  in  their  intent. 

12.  Another  proof  is  given  in  the  fact  that 
the  duration  of  the  future  punishment  of  the 
wicked  is  expressed  in  the  same  terms  as  the 
duration  of  the  life  of  the  righteous,  and  in  the 
same  phrases  as  are  used  concerning  the  Al- 
mighty. This  is  seen  not  only  in  the  use  of  the 
single  adjective  aluvtog  as  above  given  (Matt. 
xxv,  46),  but  in  such  phrases  as  etg  aiuva,  dg  roijg 
aitivag  rtiv  aluvuv.  Examples  are  as  follows  : 
"He  that  eateth,  this  bread  shall  live  forever" 
(eig  rbv  aitiva)  (John  vi,  58).  "To  whom  be  the 
glory  for  ever  and  ever  "  (etg  roijg  aitivag  rw»' 
atwvwj/)  (Gal.  i,  5).  "  Now  unto  the  king  eternal 
(rC)v  ofGovwi/),  incorruptible,  invisible,  the  only 
God,  be  honor  and  glory  for  ever  and  ever  "  (tig 
rovg  ai&vag  TWV  atwvwv)  (i  Tim.  i,  17).  "  For 
whom  the  blackness  of  darkness  hath  been  re- 
served forever  "  (slg  cduva)  (Jude  13).  "To  him 
be  the  glory  and  the  dominion  for  ever  and 
ever  "  (eig  roijg  ai&vag  rwv  alcjvcjv)  (Rev.  i,  6). 
"  And  I  was  dead,  and  behold,  I  am  alive  for  ever- 
more "  (sig  rovg  aiuvag  rd>v  atwvwv)  (ibid.,  verse  1 8). 
"  Unto  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  unto 


S  7  y  y  D 


;j8  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  Lamb,  be  the  blessing,  and  the  honor,  and 
the  glory,  and  the  dominion,  for  ever  and  ever" 
(tic,  TOVS  oi&vag  TU>I>  aiwvwv)  (ibid.,  v,  13).  "And 
the  devil  that  deceived  them  was  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  where  are  also  the 
beast  and  the  false  prophet  ;  and  they  shall  be 
tormented  day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever"  (elg 
TOV$  alwva$  TO>I>  atwvwv)  (ibid.,  xx,  10).  Language 
could  not  more  plainly  declare  the  doctrine  we 
teach. 

13.  The  disproof  of  universal  restoration,  and 
thus  indirectly  the  proof  of  eternal  punishment, 
may  be  further  shown  by  the  disproof  of  the  as- 
sertion, so  often  made,  that   t]ie  future   punish- 
ment of  the   New  Testament  is  represented  as 
remedial.     It  is  nowhere  referred  to  as  such,  but 
the  reverse. 

We  mention  this  point  simply  in  this  place, 
and  reserve  the  refutation  of  the  pleasing  error 
for  a  subsequent  chapter. 

14.  Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  life  of  man  is  divided,  according  to  the  New 
Testament,    into    but    two  "ages,"  or  "aeons," 
and  that  in  connection  with  the  "  age  to  come  " 
(aiuv  /iteAAwv)  the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  excluded. 
This  point  was  involved  in  another  already  given  ; 


THE    ETEX.M1  Y   OF  PUNJSHMENT.          39 

but  in  order  to  give  the  greater  force  to  it,  we 
present  it  here  in  a  separate  and  explicit  state- 
ment. 

That  the  fact  is  as  stated  the  Scriptures 
abundantly  testify  (Matt,  xii,  32  ;  xiii,  22  ;  Mark 
iv,  19;  x,  30;  Luke  xx,  35;  Gal.  i,  4;  Eph.  i, 
21  ;  ii,  7;  i  Tim.  vi,  17;  Tit.  2,  12).  If  the 
reader  will  examine  these  passages,  he  will  find 
several  phrases,  b  a'tcjv  ovroq,  6  alriv,  6  vvv  aiuv,  6 
ivearug  aiuv,  used  to  signify  the  present  life,  and 
several  others,  aiuv  /i^AAcjv,  6  aiuv  f:K£tvo^,  6  aiuv  6 
ip%6nevo$,  ol  aitiveg  ol  tTrep^ojuevot,  to  signify  the 
life  to  come  ;  and  that  the  one  set  of  phrases 
refers  to  the  time  before  the  advent  (parousia) 
and  the  other  to  the  time  subsequent  to  that 
event.* 

*Dr.  W.  E.  Manly,  to  whom  reference  has  been  made,  in 
his  article  in  the  Arena  for  April,  1890,  seeks  to  prove  that 
aiuv  fj.if.7juv  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  kindred  phrases,  re- 
fer to  the  Christian  age  about  to  be  inaugurated  in  contradis- 
tinction to  the  Jewish  age  in  which  Christ  and  the  apostles 
labored  before  ihe  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  nation  (A.  D.  70).  It 
is  sufficient  to  say  in  response  to  this  writer,  and  to  all  who 
teach  the  same  doctrine  from  whatever  stand-point,  (i)  That 
on  this  supposition  one  passage  of  Scripture,  at  least,  is  ren- 
dered both  false  and  absurd.  "  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  The 
sons  of  this  world  (a'luvoq  rai'-ov)  many,  and  are  given  in  mar- 
riage :  but  they  that  are  accounted  worthy  to  attain  to  that 
world  (aiuvog  EKSIVOV)  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither 
marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage :  for  neither  can  they  die  any 
more :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ;  and  are  sons  of  God. 


40  FUTURE    KETR1BUTWN. 

15.  Lastly,  the  fact  that  future  restoration  is 
not  revealed  in  the  Bible,  and  particularly  in 
view  of  the  facts  already  given,  is  probable  proof 
of  the  endlessness  of  future  punishment.  This 
we  think  important.  Some  of  the  chief  \vriters 
on  the  subject  of  restoration  freely  admit  that 
the  dos[ma  is  not  revealed.  Thus  Farrar,  how- 

O 

ever  much  he  may  contradict  himself  elsewhere, 
distinctly  disavows  being  a  Universalist :  "  But 
however  deep  may  be  our  desire  that  this  [univer- 
sal restoration]  should  be  the  will  of  God  ;  how- 
ever beautifully  it  may  seem  to  accord  both 
with  his  mercy  and  his  justice,  that  sin,  after 
bringing  its  own  punishment,  should  be  turned 
to  holiness,  and  so  forgiven  ;  however  much  we 
may  cling  to  the  hope  that  some  such  meaning 
may  underlie  the  broad  and  boundless  promises 
of  a  future  restitution, — I  dare  not  lay  down  any 
dogma  of  Universalism  ;  partly  because  it  is  not 

being  sons  of  the  resurrection  "  (Luke  xx,  34-36).  (2)  That 
"  this  age,"  in  the  language  of  Christ,  did  not  refer  to  the  Jew- 
ish age,  but  to  the  Christian  dispensation  already  begun.  This 
is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  phrase  in  connection  with  several  of 
the  parables.  For  example,  in  reference  to  the  "good  seed" 
and  the  "  tares"  it  is  said,  "  Let  both  grow  together  until  the 
harvest,"  and  "  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world  "  (awrefaia 
aluvof).  Now  this  parable  was  spoken  of  "  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  which  corresponds  with  the  Christian  age  (Matt,  xiii, 
24.  30.  39-  See  also  same  chap.,  ver.  22.) 


THE  ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         41 

clearly  revealed  to  us,  and  partly  because  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  estimate  the  hardening  ef- 
fect of  obstinate  persistence  in  evil,  and  the 
power  of  the  human  will  to  resist  the  law  and 
reject  the  love  of  God "  (Preface  to  Eternal 
Hope,  p.  xvi,  ct  passim,  and  in  his  later  book, 
Mercy  and  Judgment}.  It  is  for  him  an  "  eter- 
nal hope,"  whatever  that  expression  may  mean. 
Whiton  as  distinctly  disclaims  any  clear  revela- 
tion as  to  restoration.  He  says  :  "  The  conclu- 
sion reached  by  this  essay  is,  in  general,  that  of 
nescience,  namely,  that  the  Bible,  while  teaching 
future  punishment  in  terms  sufficiently  explicit 
and  severe  for  the  purposes  of  moral  govern- 
ment, does  not  positively  declare  the  duration 
of  that  punishment.  An  unbiased  criticism  by 
the  best  light  that  modern  scholarship  affords 
does  not  accept  the  sense  which  tradition  has 
attached  to  some  of  the  words  of  Scripture  upon 
this  subject.  The  Bible,  however,  reveals  no 
restoration  of  '  the  lost.'  It  casts  no  ray  of 
hope  upon  the  future  of  him  who  has  wasted  the 
present  life  "  (Is  Eternal  Punishment  Endless  ? 
p.  xii  of  the  Introduction).  So,  also,  Martensen  : 
"  We  only  maintain  that  this  solution  [of  what 
he  calls  an  '  antinomy '  in  the  Scriptures,  accord- 
ing to  which  some  passages  seem  to  teach  end- 


42  FUTUKE   RETRIBUTION. 

less  punishment  and  others  restoration]  is  no- 
where expressly  given  ;  and  we  ask  whether  we 
may  not  recognize  divine  wisdom  in  the  fact 
that  a  final  solution  is  not  given  us,  while  we 
are  still  in  the  stream  of  time  and  in  the  course 
of  development  ?  "  (Ckristian  Dogmatics,  p. 
476.)  Likewise  Dorner :  "  Accordingly,  this 
hypothesis  also  [annihilationism]  cannot  lay 
claim  to  unreserved  acknowledgment  and  dog- 
matic authority,  and  we  must  be  content  with 
saying  that  the  ultimate  fate  of  individuals  re- 
mains veiled  in  mysteiy,  as  well  as  whether  all 
will  attain  the  blessed  goal  or  not  "  (System 
of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  iv,  p.  427). 

Now  we  maintain  that  this  silence,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  language  of  Scripture  seems,  to 
say  the  least,  to  teach  the  endlessness  of  pun- 
ishment, is  probable  proof  of  that  doctrine.  We 
maintain  this  for  the  following  reasons : 

i.  In  view  of  the  great  amount  and  force  of 
the  evidence  apparently  for  the  doctrine  in  the 
Scriptures,  if  it  is  not  true  we  are  practically  de- 
ceived. Martensen,  in  the  quotation  above,  in- 
timates that  God  needed  to  let  us  remain  in 
doubt  for  our  good.  It  amounts  to  saying  that 
God  needed  to  so  speak  to  us  in  his  word  as  to 
deceive  us  for  our  good,  and  is  practically  saying, 


THE   ETER.V1TY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         43 

"God   does  evil  that  good  may  come  of  it  "- 
Jesuit   ethics  hardly  compatible  with  the  divine 
character  ! 

We  readily  grant  that  God  can,  consistently 
with  his  character,  and  does,  reserve  many 
things  among  the  secrets  of  his  counsel  and 
ways  ;  but  this  is  very  different  from  so  reveal- 
ing a  doctrine  as  to  cause  it  to  deceive.*  Shall 
the  truth  of  God  abound  through  his  lie  ?  "  God 
forbid."  The  thought  is  dishonoring  to  God,  and 
there  is  no  alternative  but  to  accept  the  doctrine 
as  it  appears,  and  has  always  appeared,  to  those 
who  were  willing  to  receive  the  manifest,  and  not 
some  forced,  interpretation  of  the  divine  Word. 

2.  May  it  not  be  said  that  if  it   were  not   so 
Christ  would  have  told  us,  as  he  said  concerning 
another  matter,    on   the   eve   of  his   departure  ? 
(John  xiv,  i.)     This  seems  inevitable  unless   we 
are  ready  to  accept  the  conclusion  above  drawn. 

3.  Uncertainty  is  practical   certainty  of  resto- 
ration.    This  is  so  true  that  even  those  writers 


*  This  is  manifest,  not  only  from  what  the  above  writers  say, 
but  also  from  the  almost  universal  belief  of  Christendom  in  all 
the  ages.  Surely,  if  for  eighteen  centuries  the  Christian  world 
has  been  persuaded  of  this  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  is  not 
true,  their  deception  is  not  surprising,  and  especially  when  the 
best  that  negative  scholarship  can  do  to-day  is  to  claim  a  posi- 
tion of  nescience  or  agnosticism. 


44  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

who  claim  to  be  agnostics  on  the  subject  cherish 
such  a  large  hope  as  to  allay  all  alarm  ;  and  the 
hope  they  express  is  in  many  quarters  proving 
an  effective  anaesthetic  to  many  willing  souls. 
The  uncertainty  of  such  writers  is  only  verbal ; 
the  whole  tenor  and  drift  of  their  arguments  is 
toward  certainty  of  restoration.  While  Farrar 
disclaims  Universalism,  he  nevertheless  teaches 
it.  Dr.  Pusey  points  out  this  inconsistency  in 
Farrar.  He  says:  "  It  is  difficult  for  another  to 
understand  the  difference  between  a  '  dogma* 
of  Universalism'  which  the  author  'dares  not 
lay  down,'  and  '  a  hope'  which  is  also  '  a  doc- 
trine ;  '  '  a  truth/  '  truths,  which  have  been  dis- 
placed by  groundless  opinions,  and  which  are 
necessary  for  the  purity,  almost  for  the  very  ex- 
istence, of  that  faith  which  is  the  one  sole  hope 
of  the  suffering  world  ;  '  '  a  doctrine  which  alone 
can  stem  the  spread  of  infidelity ;'  ^essential  to 
thinking  'noble  thoughts  of  God'"  (What  is 
of  Faith  as  to  Everlasting  Punishment?  p.  26). 

*  A  favorite  device  with  many  in  the  Church  who  teach  what 
is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  is  to  shield  themselves  by  claiming 
not  to  teach  "dogma,"  but  to  hold  "opinion."  Witness  the 
Andover  heresy.  It  may  be  a  legitimate  thing  to  hold  specula- 
tive opinions  about  non-essentials  not  revealed  ;  but  not  so  con- 
cerning such  facts  as  probation  and  punishment,  so  essential 
and  clearly  revealed. 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUNISHMENT.         45 

Thus,  too,  Whiton,  whose  positive  assumptions 
are  so  modest  as  almost  to  disarm  opposition, 
says:  "But  it  any  reader  be  inclined  to  com- 
plain, after  reading  this  essay,  that  it  has  added 
nothing  to  things  previously  known,  the  writer 
would  remind  him  that  it  is  often  as  serviceable 
to  the  cause  of  truth  to  define  the  limits  of  our 
knowledge  as  to  extend  them.  To  be  assured 
what  one  is  not  required  to  believe  is  often  help- 
ful to  a  doubt-encompassed  soul,  and  vital  to  its 
victory  in  the  conflict  between  faith  and  unbe- 
lief. Ignorant  must  he  be  of  the  phases  of  re- 
ligious experience  who  does  not  know  that  in 
this  way  many  a  struggling  swimmer  may  be 
lightened  of  a  weight  that  threatens  to  engulf 
him  in  the  depths  of  infidelity"  (Is  "Eternal" 
Punishment  Endless  ?  p.  xiii).  Surely,  if  one  is  not 
required  to  believe  the  doctrine,  and  the  doubt 
so  necessary  that  "  many  a  struggling  swimmer 
may  be  lightened  of  a  weight  that  threatens  to 
engulf  him  in  the  depths  of  infidelity"  may  be 
entertained,  the  result  is,  practically,  restora- 
tionism,  so  far  as  faith  is  concerned.  Clearly, 
the  Bible  cannot  leave  us  in  the  doubt  that  be- 
gets such  inconsistency.  The  fact  is,  there  is  no 
middle  position,  except  in  assertion,  between 
belief  of  the  doctrine  and  unbelief.  The  con- 


46  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

elusion  is  inevitable  ;  the  doctrine  is  a  terrible 
reality;  and  instead  of  in  fact  holding  out  a  de- 
lusive hope  under  the  modest  assumption  of 
"nescience,"  the  doctrine  should  be  proclaimed 
(if  ever  so  unpleasant,  as  it  must  be  to  all  who 
sincerely  proclaim  it),  and  all  should  take  the 
warning  it  involves. 

We  have  now  completed  a  survey  of  all  the 
leading  evidence  that  we  think  can  fairly  be 
urged  as  furnishing  ground  for  the  doctrine.  We 
might  have  given  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  but  have  not  done  so  for  the  reason  that  we 
think  Old  Testament  evidence  is  subsidiary  and 
of  secondary  importance,  and  we  have  been  giv- 
ing that  which  is  primary  and  conclusive.  We 
must  read  the  Old  Testament  teaching  in  the 
light  of  the  New.  There  are  a  few  other  points, 
however,  that  may  be  briefly  mentioned  as  furnish- 
ing corroboration  to  the  proof  already  adduced. 

i.  The  first  point  is  that  the  Jews  in  Christ's 
day  believed  in  the  endlessness  of  the  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  so  that  speaking  to  his  dis- 
ciples as  Christ  did  they  could  not  get  any  other 
impression  from  the  unqualified  language  that  he 
used.  We  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that  this  was 
the  only  doctrine  held  by  the  Jews  of  Christ's 
time,  but  that  it  was  held.  Dr.  Pusey  says: 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  .  PUNISHMENT.          47 

"Belief in  the  eternity  of  future  punishment  is 
contained  in  the  Book  of  Judith,  in  the  fourth 
Book  of  Maccabees,  in  the  so-called  Psalms  of 
Solomon  :  the  second  death  is  mentioned  in  the 
Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan  :  Josephus  at- 
tests the  belief  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  Essenes 
in  the  eternity  of  punishment"  (What  is  of 
Faith,  etc.,  p.  50).  These  books  to  which  Dr. 
Pusey  refers  were  written  before  or  soon  after 
the  time  of  our  Lord.  So,  also,  Edersheim,  who 
is  a  master  in  this  field  of  research,  concerning 
the  teaching  immediately  before  the  time  of 
Christ  of  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel, 
says :  "  The  former  arranged  all  mankind  into 
three  classes :  the  perfectly  righteous,  who  are 
'  immediately  written  and  sealed  to  eternal  life ; ' 
the  perfectly  wicked,  who  are  '  immediately  writ- 
ten and  sealed  to  Gehenna;  '  and  an  interme- 
diate class,  who  '  go  down  to  Gehinnom,  and 
moan,  and  come  up  again,'  according  to  Zech. 
xiii,  9,  and  which  seemed  also  indicated  in  cer- 
tain words  in  the  song  of  Hannah  (i  Sam.  ii,  6). 
The  careful  reader  will  notice  that  this  statement 
implies  belief  in  eternal  punishment  on  the  part 
of  the  school  of  Shammai.  For  (i)  the  per- 
fectly wicked  are  spoken  of  as  '  written  and 
sealed  unto  Gehenna  ;  '  (2)  the  school  of  Sham- 


48  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

mai  expressly  quotes,  in  support  of  what  it 
teaches  about  these  wicked,  Dan.  xii,  2,  a  pas- 
sage which  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  final  judg- 
ment after  the  resurrection  ;  (3)  the  perfectly 
wicked,  so  punished,  are  expressly  distinguished 
from  the  third,  or  intermediate  class,  who  merely 
'  <zo  down  to  Gehinnom  '  but  are  not  '  written  and 

o 

sealed,'  and  'come  up  again'"  (Life  and  Tunes 
of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  Appendix  to  vol.  ii,  p.  792). 
Now,  in  view  of  this  fact,  how  is  it  possible  to  un- 
derstand Christ's  language  on  the  subject  (Matt. 
xxv,  46 ;  Mark  ix,  43-48,  et  a!.)  with  the  hope  of 
final  restoration  of  all  men  to  life  and  happiness  ? 
His  listeners  could  not  mistake  his  meaning.* 

2.  The  fact  of  endless  punishment  is  con- 
firmed by  the  fact  of  the  atonement.  We  say 
confirmed,  not  proved  ;  for  conceivably  Christ, 
in  mercy,  might  have  suffered  and  died  to  de- 
liver from  the  limited  future  punishment  that  is 
said,  even  by  Restorationists,f  to  await  the  im- 

*  If  the  reader  desires  further  to  examine  the  question  pro 
and  contra  concerning  the  belief  of  the  Jews  on  this  subject,  let 
him  consult  the  recent  works  upon  it,  especially  those  of  Pusey 
and  Farrar  (ut  supra},  and  also  the  work  of  Dr.  Love,  Future 
Probation  Examined,  chap.  vii.  Also,  Schiirer's  The  Jewish 
People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  vol.  ii,  pp.  181-183. 

f  Many  of  these  make  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  to  last 
for  "ages  upon  ages."  We  here  take  no  account  of  the  logical 
and  theological  inconsistency  that  attributes  the  salvation  of 
men  to  Christ  after  the  penalty. 


THE   ETERNITY   OF  PUN1SHME.\  !  49 

penitent  in  the  other  world.  But  the  endless- 
ness of  future  punishment  more  easily  and  fully 
explains  the  infinite  sacrifice  of  Christ. 

3.  So,  also,  the  apparent  need  of  the  doctrine 
confirms  the  other  evidence  of  its  reality.     The 
familiar    saying  that    the  "  fear   of  hell    peoples 
heaven"  has  some    force,   if  not    as   much   as   is 
sometimes  claimed  for  it. 

Are  there  not  already  signs  of  religious  decay  as 
a  result  of  the  decline  of  faith  in  this  doctrine? 
Besides,  the  fact  is  that  a  decline  of  evangelical 
faith  and  religion  has  accompanied,  and  is  to-day 
accompanying,  the  dissemination  of  this  error. 
Universalism  is  of  close  kin  to  Unitarian  ism 
(History  of  Rationalism,  by  Bishop  John  F. 
Hurst,  pp.  560,  561).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
most  aggressive  Christian  work  has  been,  and  is 
to-day  being,  done  by  the  Churches  that  accept 
the  doctrine,  as,  for  example,  witness  our  own 
Church. 

4.  The    last    confirmatory   argument   that  we 
give  is  the  belief  of  the  Church.     Our  claim  for 
this  is   of  the  slightest    character.     Of  itself  it 
would    amount   to   nothing;  but    in    connection 
with  the  other  facts  given  it  is  of  some  weight. 
We  are  not  ready  to  say  the  great  mass  of  Chris- 
tian   believers,  both    before  and    since    the    Ref- 

4 


50  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

ormation,  have   been  deceived  on    this   subject, 
except  in  the  light  of  the  clearest  proof. 

In  conclusion,  let  it  be  said  that  the  arguments 
presented  corroborate  and  strengthen  each  oth- 
er, and  that  the  entire  force  of  the  proof  of  this 
doctrine  is  not  in  the  single  points  presented, 
however  strong  these  may  be,  but  in  the  com- 
bined strength  of  each  and  all  together.  When 
thus  considered  we  do  not  see  how,  from  ex- 
egetical  considerations,  the  doctrine  can  be  hon- 
estly denied. 


"  Because  with  lies  ye  have  made  the  heart  of  the  righteous 
sad,  whom  I  have  not  made  sad  ;  and  strengthened  the  hands 
of  the  wicked,  that  he  should  not  return  from  his  wicked  way, 
by  promising  him  life." — Ezek.  xiii,  22. 

"Which  say  to  the  seers,  See  not;  and  to  the  prophets, 
Prophesy  not  unto  us  right  things,  speak  unto  us  smooth  things, 
prophesy  deceits." — Isa.  xxx,  lo. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Objections  and  Arguments  of  Restorationists. 

THE  objections  to  the  doctrine  of  future  end- 
less retribution  are  said  to  be  both  rational 
and  scriptural.  We  propose  in  the  present  place 
to  notice  the  most  important  of  these  in  this 
order,  namely,  (I)  those  that  are  urged  from  rea- 
son and  (II)  those  that  are  accounted  scriptural. 

I.  OBJECTIONS  FROM  REASON. 

I.  First,  under  this  category,  is  to  be  named 
the  objection  from  justice.  The  objection  in 
brief  is  as  follows  :  God  cannot  be  unjust,  and 
he,  therefore,  cannot  punish  the  wicked  forever. 
It  is  seldom  or  never  urged  in  this  direct  manner ; 
but,  disrobed  of  all  its  rhetorical  dress  and  made 
to  stand  clearly  before  the  mind  as  it  is,  it  is  thus 
properly  expressed.  It  has  two  wholly  different 
propositions  (with  an  enormous  assumption  for 
a  minor  premise)  that  need  to  be  kept  thoroughly 
apart  in  our  thought  or  treatment  of  the  subject. 
The  first  proposition — that  God  cannot  be  unjust 
— no  one  will  dispute.  We  know  this  because 


54  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

of  his  character  as  revealed  in  his  Word  :  "  Right- 
eousness and  judgment  are  the  foundation  of  thy 
throne  "  (Psa.  Ixxxix,  14).  "  Righteous  and  true 
are  thy  ways,  thou  King  of  the  ages  "  (Rev.  xv,  3). 
Nor  is  his  justice  based  upon  his  might,  but  upon 
his  character.  God  has  a  right  to  do  as  he  pleases ; 
but,  happily  for  us,  he  pleases  to  do  the  right. 
"God  is  love."  Upon  his  love  is  built  his  jus- 
tice. Neither  is  his  justice  some  abstract,  met- 
aphysical quality  wholly  unlike  the  same  senti- 
ment in  ourselves.*  We  fully  accept  the  fact  that 
God's  sentiment  of  both  justice  and  love  is  the 
same  in  kind  as  ours.  The  difference  is  in  degree 
only.  God  is  perfect  and  we  imperfect.  The 
same  is  true  of  all  the  corresponding  attributes 
of  each. 

The  second  proposition  would  be  true  only  on 
the  ground  of  the  assumed  truthfulness  of  the 
suppressed  minor  premise  in  the  argument, 
namely,  that  it  would  be  unjust  in  God  to  punish 
sin  in  this  life  with  endless  suffering.  But,  clearly, 

*  Canon  Row  devotes  much  of  his  argument  from  reason  against 
future  endless  punishment  to  the  refutation  of  this  false  con- 
ception of  the  sentiimnt  of  justice  in  God,  and  to  the  refutation 
of  the  same  view  of  the  love  of  God.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  this 
is  the  position  of  hut  few  Christian  writers,  and  that  the  Chris- 
tian Church  has  always  accepted,  with  Dr.  Row,  the  sameness 
in  kind  of  the  divine  attributes  with  those  of  all  moral  intel- 
ligences. (See  Row's  Future  Retribution,  pp.  20-27.) 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  55 

this  is  the  thing  to  be  proved.  Nor  has  any  one 
done  so,  and  for  the  manifest  reason  that  it  is 
beyond  the  range  of  proof.  We  are  not  familiar 
enough  with  the  facts  involved  to  be  able  ration- 
ally to  decide  the  matter ;  and,  in  view  of  the 
manifest  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the 
endlessness  of  future  punishment,  it  becomes  us 
to  "  Stand  in  awe,  and  sin  not."  The  question 
is  not  one  of  justice,  but  of  knowledge ;  and, 
clearly,  we  are  not  in  the  position  to  know  the 
guilt  and  necessary  punishment  of  sin.  Omnis- 
cience alone  is  equal  to  such  knowledge,  and  the 
knowledge  can  become  ours  not  by  insight,  but 
alone  by  revelation.  What  the  revelation  is  we 
have  seen  in  the  foregoing  chapter. 

We  venture  a  few  remarks  that  may  throw 
some  light  upon  this  subject : 

(i)  The  guilt  and  necessary  punishment  of  sin 
are  to  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  man's  greatness 
and  responsibility  as  revealed  in  the  Bible.  If 
man  is  simply  a  highly  developed  animal,  with  no 
more  or  little  more  freedom  than  the  intelligent 
brute,  then  the  matter  of  eternal  guilt  and  pun- 
ishment is  clearly  untenable ;  but  if  as  to  his 
spirit  man  has  the  "  image  of  God,"  as  is  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  is  a  free  moral  agent  in 
any  proper  sense  of  the  phrase,  then,  clearly, 


5tf  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

eternal  guilt  and  eternal  punishment,  in  view  of 
the  necessity  of  the  latter,  are  not  contradictory 
or  absurd.  Man's  greatness  has  something  to  do 
with  his  eternal  guilt  in  deliberate  sin. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  all  Restorationists 
more  or  less  excuse  man's  guilt. 

(2)  Further  light  is  thrown  upon  this  subject 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  sin  is  committed  against 
God.  We  are  not  prepared  to  affirm,  with  Dr. 
Shedd,  that  sin  against  an  infinite  being  must 
have  infinite  guilt.  We  have  no  knowledge  of 
the  Infinite  and  of  sin  to  justify  us  in  such  an 
assumption.  But  \ve  are  prepared  to  say  simply 
that  sinning  against  God  adds  culpability  to  our 
sin.  For  the  rest  we  can  adopt  the  words  of  the 
eminent  author  just  referred  to:  "To  torture  a 
dumb  beast  is  a  crime  ;  to  torture  a  man  is  a 
greater  crime.  To  steal  from  one's  own  mother 
is  more  heinous  than  to  steal  from  a  fellow-citizen. 
The  person  who  transgresses  is  the  same  in  each 
instance;  but  the  different  worth  and  dignity  of 
the  objects  upon  whom  his  action  terminates 
makes  the  difference  in  the  gravity  of  the  two 
offenses.  David's  adultery  was  a  finite  evil  in 
reference  to  Uriah,  but  an  infinite  evil  [we  prefer 
to  say, '  much  greater  evil.'  not  because  we  know 
that  it  was  not  infinite,  but  because  we  do  rot 


OBJECTIONS   AND   ARGUMENTS.  57 

know,  from  this  stand-point,  that  it  was]  in  refer- 
ence to  God.  'Against  thee  only  have  I  sinned,' 
was  the  feeling  of  the  sinner  in  this  case.  Had 
the  patriarch  Joseph  yielded,  he  would  have 
sinned  against  Pharaoh.  But  the  greatness  of 
the  sin  as  related  to  the  fellow-creature  is  lost  in 
its  enormity  as  related  to  the  Creator,  and  his 
only  question  is :  '  How  can  I  do  this  great 
wickedness  and  sin  against  God?'  '  (Dogmatic 
Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  740.) 

(3)  Another  fact  that  throws  light  upon  the 
subject  is  that  guilt  must  last  forever.  If  a  man 
commits  a  crime  he  may  pay  the  penalty  that 
human  law  has  attached  to  it,  and  conceivably 
that  that  divine  law  has  attached  to  it,*  and  yet 
the  fact  and  guilt  of  sin  remain.  Even  a  sinner 
forgiven  is  a  forgiven  sinner;  the  fact  and  guilt 
of  his  sin  can  never  be  canceled.  In  all  eternity 
we  believe  the  saved  will  be  conscious  that  they 
are  sinners  saved  from  uncanceled  guilt.  We 
speak  of  sin  and  guilt  as  canceled  or  destroyed, 
and  in  popular  language  it  expresses  a  glorious 
redemptive  truth — the  truth  of  forgiveness — but 
in  fact  and  from  a  metaphysical  stand-point  both 
are  never-ending. 

*  This  is  said  with  the  momentary  conjecture  that  the  penalty 
i^  limited  in  duration. 


58  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

2.  The  objection  from  the  divine  love.  We 
stop  simply  for  a  moment  to  consider  the  objec- 
tion urged  from  this  stand-point.  It  is  said  that 
God  cannot  suffer  a  soul  to  perish  forever;  that 
his  infinite  love  will  cause  him  to  follow  the  last 
lost  sheep  into  the  wilderness  until  he  find  it. 

To  this  we  reply  that  it  is  in  God  not  a  matter 
of  disposition,  but  a  matter  of  ability.  We  have 
no  hesitancy  in  saying  that  if  God  could  he 
would  save  the  last  lost  soul  in  the  universe,  and 
that  he  would  spare  no  cost  to  do  so.  But  we 
have  all  reason  for  believing  that  all  his  divine 
resources  for  the  salvation  of  men  are  exhausted 
in  the  infinite  sacrifice  of  the  cross;  that  when 
God  gave  his  Son  for  the  world's  redemption  he 
exhausted  the  infinite  treasury  of  grace  and 
power,  and  that  no  other  terms  of  salvation  could 
be  proposed  than  those  given  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  necessity  of  future  punishment  we  reserve 
for  a  separate  treatment  (chap.  viii). 

It  may  be  further  said  in  response  to  this 
objection  that  it  may  be  urged  with  equal  plaus- 
ibility, and  in  fact  is  so  urged  by  the  infidel, 
against  the  divine  providential  ordering  and  gov- 
erning of  this  world.  Except  in  the  face  of  facts 
we  would  be  equally  inclined  to  object  to  many 
things  in  this  world  as  incompatible  with  the 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  59 

character  of  a  benevolent  Creator.  But  facts  are 
stubborn  things,  and  we  have  to  reconcile  them 
as  best  we  can.  So,  also,  is  this  revealed  fact  of 
endless  retribution.  Butler  long  ago  pointed 
out  this  analogy,  and  it  is  needless  to  dwell  upon 
it  longer. 

3.  The  objection  from  the  divine  omniscience. 
It  is  sometimes  urged  that  the  foreknowledge  of 
God,  in  view  of  his  love,  is  incompatible  with  the 
fact  of  endless  punishment ;  that  God,  foreknow- 
ing that  some  would  be  lost  forever,  would  have 
refrained  from  creating  the  human  race.  Some, 
to  evade  this  difficulty,  as  well  as  the  difficulty 
of  evil  in  general  in  the  universe,  deny  to  God 
the  foreknowledge  of  contingent  events.  But 
without  denying  this  scriptural  fact  we  may  ad- 
vance in  mitigation  of  the  difficulty  the  follo\v- 
ing  facts:  (i)  The  creation  of  man  was  a  benev- 
olent act.  (2)  While  man  is  not  responsible  for 
the  inclination  to  sin  with  which  he  is  born,  he, 
nevertheless,  having  sufficient  grace  given  him 
whereby  to  overcome  this  and  all  actual  sin  if  he 
choose,  is  responsible  for  actual  sin.  Man  is  a 
free  being.  (3)  God,  in  creating  the  race  of  men, 
intended  all  to  be  saved  (2  Pet.  iii,9).  (4)  None 
will  be  lost  but  those  who  w ill  not  be  saved  (John 
v,  40).  Damnation  is  a  thing  of  deliberate  choice. 


60  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

(5)  The  race,  as  such,  will  in  all  probability  be 
saved.  (This  point  will  be  dwelt  upon  in  a  sub- 
sequent chapter,  v.) 

With  these  qualifications  the  objections  from 
this  stand-point  vanish.  It  is  by  forgetting  or 
ignoring  them,  especially  man's  freedom,  that 
the  objections  find  place. 

4.  The  objection  from  teleology.  The  objec- 
tion from  this  stand-point  asks,  with  Martensen, 
the  almost  stunning  question  :  "  Must  this  world's 
development,  then,  ertd  in  a  dualism?"  Will 
evil  continue  forever  in  a  benevolent  universe 
along  with  the  good  ? 

It  is  one  of  the  most  serious  difficulties  with 
which  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution  has  to 
contend  ;  but,  however  difficult  and  startling  the 
thought  may  be,  it  can  weigh  nothing  against  a 
clearly  revealed  fact  of  the  divine  Word.  Besides, 
as  Dorner,  who  certainly  is  not  biased  toward  the 
orthodox  doctrine,  says,  "  The  objective  reason 
why  no  categorical  affirmation  [concerning  apok- 
atastasis]  can  be  made  on  dogmatic  grounds  lies 
in  human  freedom.  It  does  not  admit  the  asser- 
tion of  a  universal  process  leading  necessarily  to 
salvation,  because  such  process  is  and  remains 
conditioned  by  non-rejection  and  free  acceptance" 
(System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  iv,  p.  424;  ; 


OBJECTIONS   AND   ARGUMENTS.  61 

only  we  would  limit  the  influence  of  freedom  to 
this  life  in  deciding  destiny.  The  further  reason 
of  this  eternal  dualism  will  be  discussed  in  an- 
other place  (chap.  viii). 

Other  objections  of  this  class,  more  or  less  in- 
volved in  those  already  given,  need  not  be  con- 
sidered. 

II.  OBJECTIONS  FROM  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

All  the  objections  from  this  stand-point  are 
urged  chiefly  with  reference  to  the  word  aiuviog 
in  Matt,  xxv,  46,  and  such  phrases  as  "  eternal 
fire"  (TO  -rrvp  TO  aiuviov),  "unquenchable  fire" 
(TO  Trtyj  TO  aottecrrov),  "  unto  ages  "  (el<;  alu>va), 
"  unto  the  ages  of  ages "  (ei$  rov<;  aluvag  r&v 
aton'on'),  etc. 

I.  As  to  the  word  a'uoviog  in  Matthew,  it  is  as- 
serted by  some  that  it  cannot  mean  eternal ;  by 
others,  simply  that  it  does  not  mean  eternal. 
Both  assertions  are  made,  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  judge,  principally  on  the  ground  that  in 
some  cases,  and  etymologically,  it  does  not  mean 
eternal.  We  know  no  writer  who  pretends  to 
assert  in  either  case  the  contrary.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  all  acknowledge  that  aiuv — the  sub- 
stantive form  of  which  aioinoc  is  a  derivative 
adjective — etymologically  means  an  "  age,"  and 


62  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

that  al&viot;  itself  is  often  used  both  in  the  Greek 
writers,  in  the  Septuagint  (where  it  is  used  in  the 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  D?iy,  a  word  that  has 
in  the  Old  Testament  an  almost  parallel  signifi- 
cation with  the  word  aluv  in  its  uses  in  the  New 
Testament ;  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  fact  that  the 
New  Testament  writers  used  the  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  the  older  Scriptures),  and  in  the  New 
Testament  in  the  sense  of  limited  duration.  But 
the  question  to  be  considered  is  whether  it  ever 
means  "  eternal." 

Those  who  assert  that  the  word  never  means 
eternal  do  so  in  the  face  of  many  indubitable 
facts  to  the  contrary.  From  the  Scriptures  we 
insist  that  it  does  so  mean  in  reference  to  God 
and  the  future  life  of  the  righteous.  (Examine 
Rom.  xvi,  26;  2  Cor.  iv,  17;  v,  I  ;  Heb.  v,  9; 
ix,  15.)  Lexicographers  also  tell  us  that  the 
word  has  in  some  instances  the  same  meaning  in 
the  Greek  classics.  (See  Thayer,  Greek-English 
Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  in  loco*'] 

The   particular  question,  then,  for  us  to  con- 

*  It  will  not  detract  from  the  argument  to  remind  the  reader 
that  the  word  "  eternal "  is  not  only  a  translation  of  the  Greek 
aluvcof,  but  that  it  is  identical  with  it.  "  The  Greek  aluv  (aeon) 
is  one  and  the  same  with  the  Latin  avum,  and  from  this  we 
get  avitas  and  tzviternus,  with  their  shortened  forms,  cetas  and 
telernvs." 


OBJECTIONS  AND    ARGUMENTS.  63 

sider  is,  Does  the  word  mean  eternal  in  this 
place  ?  That  it  does  may  be  inferred  not  only 
from  the  fact  that  there  is  no  reason  for  the 
assertion  to  the  contrary,  but  also  from  the 
correlated  facts  adduced  in  the  Scripture  proofs 
of  the  doctrine  of  punishment  (chap.  l). 

2.  As  to  the  phrases  "  unto  ages,"  "  unto  the 
ages  of  ages,"  etc.,  it  is  sometimes  said  that  they 
cannot  signify  "  eternal,"  for  no  amount  of  mul- 
tiplication of  "  ages  "  can  make  an  eternity. 

Our  response  to  this  is  that  these  plural  forms 
and  phrases  are  rhetorical  expressions  intended 
to  emphasize  and  deepen  the  impression  of  eter- 
nity, like  our  own  "  for  ever  and  ever."  And 
that  they  signify  absolute  endlessness  it  is  sur- 
prising that  any  one  can  deny.  That  they  do  so 
signify  is  manifest  from  the  following  Scriptures  : 
"  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for- 
ever" (elg  rbv  aiuva)  (John  vi,  51).  "  He  that  eat- 
eth  this  bread  shall  live  forever  "  (John  vi, 
58).  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever  " 
(e/'f  rbv  aiuva  rov  atojvo^)  (Heb.  i,  8).  "And  they 
shall  reign  for  ever  and  ever  "  («$  rovg  aitivag  rCjv 
atojvtov)  (Rev.  xxii,  5). 

3.  Concerning  the  phrase   "eternal  fire,"  it  is 
objected :   Even    if   the    word  aluvtog  here    does 
mean  "  eternal,"  still  the  phrase  signifies  nothing 


64  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

as  to  the  eternity  of  punishment,  for  it  is  the 
"fire"  that  is  eternal  and  not  the  punishment, 
the  instrument  of  punishment  and  not  the  pun- 
ishment itself.  The  same  is  said  with  reference 
to  the  phrases  "  unquenchable  fire,"  "  the  fire  is 
not  quenched,"  etc. 

It  is  sufficient  to  reply  to  this  that  such  is  not 
the  impression  that  one  naturally  gets  from  read- 
ing this  terrible  language.  The  words  have  to 
be  explained  to  mean  this.  And  again,  unless 
the  "  fire  "  of  future  punishment  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament represents  some  external  instrument  of 
torture  (a  thing  that  few  Universalists  will  be 
willing  to  admit),  it  cannot  last  forever.  Other- 
wise, it  must  in  the  nature  of  things  cease  to  be 
when  the  punishment  ceases.  Besides,  if  it  be 
even  thought  that  the  instrument  is  external,  it 
is  inconceivable  that  it  shall  continue  forever,  its 
function  and  use  having  come  to  an  end. 

"  Eternal "  and  "  unquenchable  "  fire  can  mean 
nothing  less,  therefore,  than  eternal  punishment. 

4.  It  is  asserted  further  by  some  that  the  word 
aluviog  in  the  New  Testament  connotates  a  qual- 
itative and  not  a  quantitative  meaning ;  that 
"  eternal  life  "  signifies  the  kind  of  life  those  in 
Christ  enjoy,  and  has  no  reference  to  its  duration  ; 
and  that  "  eternal  punishment  "  signifies  the  kind 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  Go 

of  punishment  the  wicked  must  endure,  and  has 
no  reference  to  its  duration.  For  the  Christian 
not  versed  in  Greek  and  not  used  to  scientific 
study  it  may  be  looked  upon  simply  as  "  figu- 
rative "  (Whtton,  Is  "  Eternal"  Punishment  End- 
less ?  p.  xii). 

We  content  ourselves  in  response  with  a  single 
remark,  namely,  that  not  only  does  the  quanti- 
tative sense  of  the  word  suit  the  connection  in 
all  cases  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (Biblical  Eschatology,  A.  Hovey,  p.  163)  ; 
and  not  only  is  the  word  "life"  used  by  John 
to  signify  the  quality  of  our  existence  in  Christ 
without  the  word  "  eternal  "  (John  iii,  36;  v,  24; 
vi,  33,  etc.) ;  but  that  in  none  of  the  instances  of 
its  use  is  the  impression  naturally  made  that  the 
word  has  the  qualitative  signification.  The  word 
that  expresses  quality  of  existence  in  Christ  in 
the  phrase  ''eternal  life"  is  the  word  "life," 
and  the  word  "  eternal  "  simply  governs  the  life 
as  to  its  duration.  When  St.  John  speaks  of 
"  eternal  life  "  as  a  present  possession,  and  St. 
Paul  speaks  of  it  as  a  hope  (Rom.  ii,  7  ;  Tit. 
i,  2  ;  iii,  7),  the  thought  is  in  every  case  "  the 
life  which  is  eternal,"  the  first  word  signifying 
the  quality  and  the  second  the  quantity  or  du- 
ration of  existence. 
K 


66  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

Another  form  of  this  same  objection  is  that 
which  asserts  that  the  word  aiuvtog  signifies  simply 
"  pertaining  to  eternity."  This  also,  however,  will 
not  bear  the  test  of  the  laws  of  lexicography. 

Still  another  form  of  the  objection  is  that 
which  asserts  that  the  word  has  an  "absolute" 
signification  ;  that  in  its  use  in  the  Scriptures  it 
denotes  that  which  is  above  time.  The  objection 
in  this  form  is  associated  with  the  notion  that 
time  and  eternity  are  exclusive  ideas,  and  that 
with  regard  to  God  and  eternal  things  it  is  not 
proper  to  postulate  succession  or  duration  of 
existence.  On  this  ground  it  is  asserted  that 
when  the  word  aluvio<;  is  used  with  reference  to 
the  life  after  death  it  signifies  nothing  as  to  du- 
ration, and  hence  that  it  signifies  nothing  as  to 
the  extent  of  future  punishment. 

In  response  to  this  k  will  be  sufficient  to  quote 
the  following  words  of  Plumptre,  a  well-known 
scholar  of  the  first  rank,  and  one  whose  testi- 
mony will  not  be  thought  to  favor  through  tra- 
ditional prejudice  the  common  view.  As  to  the 
word  aluvioc;,  after  referring  to  many  instances  of 
its  use  in  the  New  Testament,  he  says :  "  It 
might  seem  as  if  this  were  a  sufficient  induction 
to  establish  the  conclusion  that  the  word  served 
to  express  the  fullest  thought  that  man  could 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  67 

grasp  of  absolute  limitless  duration  "  (T lie  Spirits 
in  Prison,  p.  361).  As  to  the  thought  of  time 
being  eliminated  from  the  thought  of  eternity  in 
the  Scriptures,  he  says:  "I  find  it  impossible  to 
conceive  of  life,  either  human  or  divine,  apart 
from  the  idea  of  duration,"  and  then  shows  from 
such  passages  as  Rev.  i,  8;  Psa.  cxxxv,  13; 
cxxxvi,  1-26,  that,  separate  from  the  word  ottovto^, 
the  idea  of  duration  is  expressly  given  in  connec- 
tion with  the  idea  of  the  divine  Being  (ibid.,  p.  368. 
The  whole  connection  will  repay  examination). 

III.  ARGUMENTS  OF  UNIVERSALISTS. 

We  next  turn  to  the  most  important  argu- 
ments of  the  Universalist,  by  which  he  seeks  to 
establish  his  pleasing  claim.  Many  arguments 
from  this  source  are  too  artificial  to  deserve  seri- 
ous notice.  Those  which  we  propose  to  examine 
are  of  two  kinds  :  (I)  Those  urged  from  specific 
passages  of  Scripture,  and  (II)  those  that  claim 
to  be  legitimate  deductions  from  certain  general 
principles. 

A  preliminary  word  as  to  method.  Few  writers 
of  this  class  have  any  regard  for  sound  laws  of 
exegesis.  In  the  matter  of  specific  texts,  in  nearly 
all  cases  the  context  is  wholly  ignored.  Few, 
however,  are  so  outspoken  in  their  disregard  for 


68  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

particular  passages  of  Scripture  as  is  Dr.  Cox  in 
the  following  quotation  : 

"  For  myself  I  am  glad  that  this  necessary,  yet 
less  welcome  and  less  conclusive,  part  of  our  task 
is  over,  and  that  we  may  pass  on  and  up  from 
these  minute  critical  investigations  to  breathe  a 
larger  air  and  to  move  freely  along  a  higher  path. 
For  not  only  does  it  cramp  and  deaden  the  spirit 
that  is  in  man  to  tarry  long  in  the  low  valley  of 
mere  criticism,  where  the  atmosphere  is  com- 
monly charged  with  the  elements  of  polemical 
strife  ;  but  it  is  also  impossible  for  him,  until  he 
climb  up  out  of  it,  to  gain  any  broad,  decisive, 
and  inspiring  view  of  the  truth  for  which  he  con- 
tends. For  no  conclusion  can  be  safely  based  on 
the  study  of  scattered  and  isolated  texts;"  by 
which  he  means  particular  passages  of  Scripture, 
such  as  he  has  already  examined  (Salvaior 
Mundi,  p.  148). 

Before  passing  to  the  more  particular  consid- 
eration of  our  present  topic,  we  beg  leave  to 
remind  the  Universalist  who  claims  so  much  for 
principles,  and  who  has  so  little  regard  for  specific 
texts,  that  all  his  so-called  principles  are  but  in- 
ductions from  particular  statements  of  the  divine 
Word.  What,  for  example,  is  the  principle  of 
divine  love  but  an  induction  from  such  passages 


OftJ/-:C7'JV.\'S   .l.Y/)   AKGUAfENTS.  69 

of  Scripture  as  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  on  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life,"  and  "God  is  love?"  Or, 
again,  what  is  the  principle  of  the  divine  "  un- 
changeableness  "  but  an  induction  from  such 
passages  as  these  :  "  For  I  the  Lord  change  not  " 
(Mai.  iii,  6),  "  Every  good  gift  and  every  perfect 
boon  is  from  above,  coming  down  from  the 
Father  of  lights,  with  whom  can  be  no  variation, 
neither  shadow  that  is  cast  by  turning"  (Jas. 
i,  17)?  We  would  remind  the  Universalist  still 
further  that  these  so-called  principles  of  his  are 
not,  properly  speaking,  principles  at  all,  but  re- 
vealed facts;  or,  if  he  insists  on  saying  they  are 
revealed  principles,  we  reply  that  endless  suffering 
is  as  much  a  revealed  principle,  on  this  assump- 
tion, as  is  the  divine  love  or  unchangeableness. 
We  prefer  to  say,  however,  that  they  are  revealed 
facts,  all  of  them ;  and  whether  we  stand  on  the 
summit  or  not  from  which  we  can  see  their  har- 
mony and  reconciliation,  as  revealed  they  are  to 
be  accepted  in  our  thinking  and  life,  and  should 
govern  our  teaching  and  conduct. 

Furthermore,  we  can  have  no  controversy  upon 
the  subject  with  those  whose  method  is  to  sub- 
ordinate the  teaching  of  Scripture  to  the  so-called 


70  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

dictates  of  reason  and  the  moral  sense.  We  are 
not  rationalists,  and  are  unwilling  to  apply  in 
practice  a  principle  which  we  ignore  in  profession. 
Our  only  contention,  then,  will  be  with  those 
who  claim  to  get  their  specific  teaching  and 
principles  of  reasoning  from  the  divine  Word. 

I.  Arguments  from  so-called  principles,  or  de- 
ductions from  undisputed  Scripture  facts. 

I.  First  among  these  we  place  that  which  is 
urged  on  the  ground  of  the  divine  unchange- 
ableness.  This  argument  has  various  forms  and 
illustrations,  but  in  substance  asserts  that  since 
God  is  unchangeable,  and  has  dealt  with  men  in 
the  past,  and  deals  with  them  in  the  present,  on 
certain  principles  of  mercy  and  patience,  he  will 
always  so  deal  with  them,  and  hence  that  the 
door  of  grace  will  .never  be  closed  upon  their 
return  to  life  and  happiness. 

The  insuperable  difficulty  with  the  argument, 
however,  is  that  it  proves  too  much;  for  if  the 
final  restoration  of  all  men  is  a  legitimate  infer- 
ence on  the  ground  of  the  divine  unchangeable- 
ness  from  the  principle  and  fact  of  past  and  pres- 
ent dealings  of  mercy,  then  equally  may  eternal 
wrath  be  deduced,  on  the  same  ground,  from  the 
fact  that  in  this  life  in  certain  instances  the  door 
of  repentance  has  been  closed  upon  the  persist- 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  71 

ently  wicked.  Witness,  for  example,  the  ante- 
diluvians who  perished  in  the  flood,  and  Esau 
(Heb.  xii,  17),  besides  the  many  cases  in  which 
the  door  of  return  has  been  closed,  and  is  being 
closed  to-day,  upon  those  who  have  forfeited  or 
wasted  their  powers  and  opportunities,  as  seen 
outside  of  the  Scriptures.  The  fact  is,  the  di- 
vine unchangeableness  proves  no  more  than  what 
is  revealed  concerning  it,  and  this  is  consistent 
with  the  equally  revealed  fact  of  punishment. 
Moreover,  the  divine  unchangeableness,  in  view 
of  the  Scriptures  which  affirm  that  sin  persisted 
in  conducts  to  an  irretrievable  ruin,  is  to  be 
urged  with  all  its  force  on  the  side  of  the  teach- 
ing of  the  orthodox  Church.  Because  God  who 
changes  not  has  declared,  "  The  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die,"  therefore  we  accept  the  plain  and  ter- 
rible teaching  of  the  divine  Word,  and  urge  men  to 
immediate  repentance.  Any  other  use  of  this  fact, 
in  view  of  all  that  is  revealed,  is  wresting  the 
Scriptures  to  one's  own  destruction  (2  Pet.  iii,  16). 
2.  The  divine  love.  We  have  sufficiently 
considered  this  in  another  place,  and  stop  here 
to  add  a  word  only.  There  can  be  no  conten- 
tion between  the  Universalist  and  the  orthodox 
believer  at  this  point.*  The  love  of  God  is  as 

*\\~e  mean,  of  course,  the  Trinitarian  Universalist. 


72  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

much  a  cherished  fact  to  the  one  as  to  the  other. 
We  both  measure  the  love  of  God  in  the  light  of 
the  cross.  The  difference  between  us  is  in  our 
inferential  assertion  from  this  fact.  The  Uni- 
versalist  says,  "  God  is  love ;  therefore  he  will 
ultimately  save  all  men."  We  say,  "  God  is 
love,  and  desires  to  save  all  men,  but  cannot 
save  those  who  in  life  will  not  be  saved."  The 
reason  of  future  endless  retribution,  as  before 
intimated,  will  be  considered  later  on. 

3.  Sufficient  has  also  been  said  concerning  the 
divine  justice. 

4.  Another  fact  which  is  virtually  (Martensen), 
and    sometimes    actually    (Jukes),   urged    as    an 
argument  in  favor   of  final    universal  restoration 
is  what  is  called  by  some  an  "  antinomy  "  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  by  others  an  "  apparent  contra- 
diction."     Sometimes   this   so-called   antinomy, 
or  apparent   contradiction,   is  attempted    to  be 
explained,    and   in  the   interest   of   restoration  ; 
again,  it  is  left   unexplained  with  a  secret  hope 
that  beneath  the  mystery  lies  a  deep  purpose  of 
benevolence  that  will  finally  compass  the  salva- 
tion of  all   men.     The  facts   on  which  this  doc- 
trine is  built  may  best  be  stated  in  the  language 
of  its  advocates. 

"This   antinomy  meets  us  if  we   turn  to   the 


OBJT.C'I IOXS   AXD   ARi'.l'MENTS.  73 

Holy  Scriptures,  and  no  definite  solution  is  given 
of  it  there.  There  are  texts  which,  if  they  be 
taken  in  their  full  and  literal  import,  most  dis- 
tinctly refer  to  eternal  damnation.  When  the 
Lord  speak\of  '  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the 
devil  and  his  angels  ; '  when  he  speaks  of  '  the 
worm  that  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  which  shall 
not  be  quenched ; '  when  he  mentions  sins 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  '  shall  never  be 
forgiven,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  that  which 
is  to  come'  (Mark  ix,  43;  Matt,  xii,  32);  when 
the  apostle  John  declares  that  there  is  a  sin  unto 
death,  for  which  a  man  must  not  pray  (i  John 
v,  16), — these  texts,  if  they  be  taken  without 
reservation  or  refinement,  clearly  express  the 
idea  of  a  condemnation  in  which  there  is  no 
cessation,  to  which  there  is  no  end.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  are  contrasted  expressions  of 
Scripture  which  have  an  equal  claim  to  be  taken 
in  their  full  sense.  When  the  apostle  Paul  says 
that  '  the  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is 
death'  (therefore  the  other,  the  second  death; 
because  otherwise  there  would  still  remain  an 
unconquerable  enemy) ;  when  he  speaks  of  the 
time  'when  God  shall  be  all  in  all  '  (i  Cor.  xv, 
26-28),  without  referring  to  any  contrast  what- 
ever between  blessed  and  condemned  ;  when  he 


74  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

states,  without  any  reservations,  that  '  all  things 
shall  be  gathered  together  in  Christ  '  (Eph.  i,  10) 
as  the  Head,  that  '  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive  '  (i  Cor.  xv,  22),— 
if  we  take  these  texts  without  limiting  their  full 
and  obvious  import,  we  shall  not  be  far  from  the 
idea  of  a  universal  restoration  ;  for  the  apostle 
says  expressly  ALL,  not  some.  (Compare  Matt. 
xix,  26!)  This  apparent  contradiction  in  the 
language  of  Scripture  shows  that  Scripture  itself 
does  not  afford  us  a  final  dogmatic  solution  of 
the  question.  He  who  seeks  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  (aTroKardoraot^  universal  restoration 
must  invalidate  those  texts  which  make  mention 
of  eternal  damnation,  must  limit  and  pare  them 
down  according  to  this  idea  ;  and  he  who  would 
establish  eternal  damnation  as  a  dogma  by 
means  of  Scripture  is  obliged  to  limit  and  pare 
down  those  texts  which  speak  for  the  arroKard- 
araoig,  according  to  this  idea  :  for  example,  when 
the  apostle  says,  '  As  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so 
in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,'  he  must  ex- 
plain the  second  '  all '  as  meaning  '  some,'  and 
he  must  take  the  first  '  all  '  in  a  particular  and 
equally  restricted  sense.  We  readily  grant  that 
the  Word  of  God  cannot  contradict  itself,  and 
that  the  antinomy  here  presented  must  really  be 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMEN1 ' S.  75 

solved  in  the  depth  of  God's  Word.  We  only 
maintain  that  this  solution  is  nowhere  expressly 
given  ;  and  we  ask  whether  we  may  not  recog- 
nize divine  wisdom  in  the  fact  that  a  final  solu- 
tion is  not  given  us,  while  we  are  still  in  the 
stream  of  time  and  in  the  course  of  develop- 
ment?" (Martensen,  Christian  Dogmatics,  pp. 

475.  4/6.) 

Again :  "  What,  then,  does  Scripture  say  on 
this  subject  ?  Its  testimony  appears  at  first 
sight  contradictory.  Not  only  is  there  on  the 
one  hand  law,  condemning  all,  while  on  the  other 
hand  there  is  the  Gospel,  with  good  news  for 
every  one ;  but,  further,  there  are  direct  state- 
ments as  to  the  results  of  these,  which  at  first 
sight  are  apparently  irreconcilable.  First  our 
Lord  calls  his  flock  '  a  little  flock,'  and  states 
distinctly  that  '  many  are  called,  but  few  are 
chosen  ; '  that  '  strait  is  the  .gate,  and  narrow 
is  the  way,  which  leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there 
be  that  find  it ;  '  that  '  many  shall  seek  to  enter 
in,  and  shall  not  be  able;'  that  while  'he  that 
believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life,  he 
that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life,  but 
the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him  ;'  that  '  the 
wicked  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment,''  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels;' 


76  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

'  the  resurrection  of  damnation  ;'  '  the  damnation 
of  hell,'  '  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire 
is  not  quenched  ;'  that  though  '  every  word 
against  the  Son  of  man  may  be  forgiven,  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven, 
neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come  ; ' 
and  that  of  one  at  least  it  is  true,  that  '  good  had 
it  been  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been  born.' 

***** 
"  Words  could  not  well  be  stronger.  The 
difficulty  is  that  all  this  is  but  one  side  of  Script- 
ure, which  in  other  places  seems  to  teach  a 
very  different  doctrine.  For  instance,  there  are 
first  the  words  of  God  himself,  repeated  again 
and  again  by  those  same  apostles  whom  I  have 
just  quoted,  that  '  in  Abraham's  seed  all  the 
kindreds  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  ' — words 
which  St.  Peter  expounds  to  mean  that  there 
shall  be  'a  restitution  of  all  things,'  adding  th.it 
'  God  hath  spoken  of  this  by  the  mouth  of  all  his 
holy  prophets  since  the  world  began.'  St.  Paul 
further  declares  this  wondrous  '  mystery  of  God's 
will,  that  he  hath  purposed  in  himself,  according 
to  his  good  pleasure,  to  rehead  and  reconcile 
unto  himself,  in  and  by  Christ,  all  things, 
whether  they  be  things  in  heaven  ' — that  is,  the 
spirit-world,  where  the  conflict  with  Satan  yet  is — 


OBJF.CTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  77 

'or  things  on  earth' — that  is,  this  outward  world, 
where  death  now  reigns,  and  where  even  God's 
elect  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as 
other  men.  Further,  St.  Paul  asserts  that  'all 
creation,  which  now  groans,  shall  be  delivered 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption,  into  the  glori- 
ous liberty  of  the  children  of  God."  In  another 
place  he  declares  that  '  God  was  in  Christ  recon- 
ciling the  world  unto  himself,'  and  that  Christ 
'took  our  flesh  and  blood,  through  death  to  de- 
stroy him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is, 
the  devil ;'  that  '  if  by  the  offense  of  one  many 
be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ, 
hath  abounded  unto  many  ;'  that '  therefore  as  by 
the  offense  of  one,  or  by  one  offense,  judgment 
came  on  all  to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the 
righteousness  of  one,  or  by  one  righteousness, 
the  free  gift  should  come  on  all  unto  justification 
of  life,'  while  '  they  which  receive  abundance  of 
grace,  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reign 
in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ;'  that  'as  sin  hath 
reigned  unto  death,  so  grace  might  reign  unto 
eternal  life,' yea,  that '  where  sin  abounded,  grace 
did  yet  much  more  abound.  .  .  .' 

"...  What  can  this  contradiction  mean?  Is 
there   any   key,    and    if   so,    what   is    it,   to   this 


78  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

mystery?"  (Jukes,  Restitution  of  All  Things, 
pp.  19-26.) 

The  key  that  this  writer  finds  is  the  doctrine 
of  universal  restoration. 

As  to  the  alleged  antinomy  we  can  offer  noth- 
ing better  than  the  following  from  a  writer 
already  quoted : 

"  There  is  a  sophism  in  the  very  word.  In 
a  pure  question  of  fact  the  term  '  antinomy  '  is 
not  applicable.  It  can  properly  apply  only  to 
the  relation  existing  between  two  laws  or  princi- 
ples (principles  either  of  procedure  or  of  thought) 
which  are  each  conceived  as  valid  and  impera- 
tive, but  which  issue  in  contradictory  proposi- 
tions. Now,  of  course,  it  is  allowable  to  argue 
the  purely  a  priori  question  :  Do  our  concep- 
tions of  God,  or  of  the  moral  nature  of  man, 
necessitate  a  belief  that  the  punishment  of 
human  sin  will  be  endless?  Such  an  argument 
may  issue  in  a  so-called  '  antinomy  of  faith.' 
But  the  question  in  hand  is  one  of  fact.  The 
mind  may  remain  at  rest  in  an  antinomy  ;  it  does 
not,  at  least,  annul  organic  thought.  It  is  com- 
patible with  reason  and  science.  The  instance 
given  above  is  familiar  ;  divine  foreknowledge  on 
the  one  hand,  human  responsibility  on  the  other. 
It  is  otherwise  with  a  question  of  fact — the  ex- 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  79 

istence  and  non-existence  at  the  same  time  of  a 
given  thing,  the  taking  place  and  the  not  taking 
place  of  a  given  event.  The  present  question  is 
one  of  the  latter  kind — one  on  which  the  Script- 
ures do  not  reason  with  men,  but  announce  to 
men  "  (William  A.  Stevens,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  January,  1889,  p.  139). 

But  allowing  the  word  "  antinomy"  to  stand, 
if  thereby  is  intended  an  "  apparent  contradic- 
tion," as  others  affirm,  we  are  prepared  to  assert 
that  there  is  no  such  "  apparent  contradiction  " 
between  the  passages  cited  except  to  those  who 
persistently  ignore  their  plain  and  obvious  in- 
tent as  seen  when  read  in  their  connections. 
Consideration  will  be  given  to  these  specific  pas- 
sages in  another  place  (pp.  91-113). 

5.  Punishment  remedial.  It  is  asserted  that 
in  the  Scriptures  future  punishment  is  set  forth 
as  corrective,  remedial,  and  hence  that  it  will 
cease  when  it  has  fulfilled  its  function  in  disci- 
plining the  lost  for  heaven.  This  is  sometimes 
asserted  as  an  inference  from  the  fact  of  a  divine 
benevolent  chastisement  in  the  present  life 
(Heb.  xii,  5-11).  Again,  the  assertion  is  made 
on  the  ground  of  certain  Scripture  words  and 
statements.  We  propose  to  consider  the  valid- 
ity or  invalidity  of  the  claim. 


80  FUTURE  RETRIBUl^ION. 

So  far  as  the  teaching  is  an  inference  from 
such  Scriptures  as  Heb.  xii,  5-11,  it  is  plainly  in 
conflict  with  the  logical  requirement  which  de- 
mands the  ground  of  the  inference.  We  gladly 
recognize  the  revealed  fact  that  our  heavenly 
Father  chastens  his  children  for  their  profit  in 
this  life,  but  see  nothing  in  this  to  invalidate  the 
fact,  equally  revealed,  of  future  punishment  that, 
because  eternal,  cannot  be  corrective.  Besides, 
the  "chastisement"  of  the  Bible  is  for  "  sons," 
and  sinners  are  not  sons  in  the  evangelical  use 
of  the  word.  (Compare  John  viii,44  ;  Rom.  viii, 
14;  Gal.  iv,  5,  6.) 

As  to  Scripture  facts  directly  claimed  in  its 
favor,  it  is  said  that  the  word  aoXani^  in  the 
phrase  "  eternal  punishment  "  (icokaoiv  aluvLov)  in 
Matt,  xxv,  46,  signifies  "pruning,"  or  discipline, 
and  that  the  wicked  are  accordingly  assigned  in 
the  judgment  to  an  "  seonial  pruning,"  not  pun- 
ishment. It  is  claimed  that  the  true  Greek  word 
for  "  retributive  "  punishment  is  r/.juwp/a,  not 


It  is  freely  acknowledged  that  the  alleged  dis- 
tinction is  made  in  the  classic  Greek  writings. 
(See  Thayer,  ut  supra.}  But  even  in  these  writ- 
ings "usage  does  not  always  recognize  the  dis- 
tinction," especially  in  the  later  of  them  (ibid.}. 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  81 


Also,  KOAOOIS  is  used  in  the  Septuagint  in  some 
instances  (for  example,  2  Mace,  iv,  38),  and  once 
at  least  in  the  verb  form  in  the  Ne\v  Testament 
(Acts  iv,  21),  where  the  idea  of  discipline  is  ex- 
cluded. The  first  of  these  passages  concerns  the 
punishment  of  Andronicus  by  Antiochus  for  the 
murder  of  the  high-priest  Onias,  and  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  And  being  kindled  with  anger,  forth- 
with he  took  away  Andronicus  his  pupil,  and 
rent  off  his  clothes,  and  leading  him  through  the 
whole  city  unto  that  very  place  where  he  had 
committed  impiety  against  Onias,  there  slew  he 
the  cursed  murderer.  Thus  the  Lord  rewarded 
him  his  punishmer.t  [icokaaiv]  as  he  had  deserved." 
The  passage  in  Acts  is  as  follows  :  "  And  they, 
when  they  had  further  threatened  them,  let 
them  go,  finding  nothing  how  they  might  pun- 
ish [KoAaCTwvTof]  them,  because  of  the  people." 
Moreover,  there  is  no  instance  of  the  use  of  the 
word  in  the  Bible  where  the  retributive  sense 
is  not  perfectly  natural,  and  in  fact  only  so. 
(Compare  I  John  iv,  18  ;  2  Pet.  ii,  9.)  The 
word  that  properly  signifies  discipline  is  naideia. 
Again,  Kohaois  is  not  alone  used  in  the  Script- 
ures of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  In  Heb. 
x,  29,  it  is  asked,  "  Of  how  much  sorer  punish- 

ment   [rtjuwptof],  think   ye,    shall   he     be  judged 
C 


82  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son  of 
God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant, 
wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing, 
and  hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace  ?  " 

Again,  it  is  asserted  that  the  remedial  charac- 
ter of  future  punishment  is  taught  in  the  u£e  of 
the  word  "  fire,"  which  describes  its  nature,  and 
especially  in  the  phrase  "  salted  with  fire  "  in 
Mark  ix,  49.  It  is  said  one  of  the  functions  of 
fire,  and  especially  "  salt,"  is  to  purify,  or  cleanse, 
and  that  these  words  intimate  the  purging  qual- 
ity of  the  punishment  of  the  life  to  come,  which 
purging  will  go  on  until  all  the  moral  filth  of  the 
universe  is  burned  up.  When  sin  is  thus  burned 
out  of  the  souls  of  men,  then  they  will  be  ready 
for  the  purity  of  heaven.  It  is  intimated  that 
the  fires  of  Hinnom  (yeevva),  the  place  which 
symbolized  the  future  place  of  torment,  were 
kindled  and  kept  burning  for  sanitary  purposes. 

In  response  to  this  we  may  say,  first,  that  no 
doubt  fire  has  a  sanitary  function,  and  that  the 
fire  of  hell  has  the  same  function  for  the  moral 
world  ;  but  it  is  for  the  purgation  of  the  moral 
world,  and  not  of  those  cast  into  it.  The  fire  of 
Hinnom  kept  the  pestilence  from  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  ;  it  did  not  cleanse,  but  destroyed  the 
things  cast  into  it.  Moreover,  fire  was  used  in 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  83 

some  instances  for  purely  punitive  purposes  (Lev. 
x,  2  ;  Num.  xvi,  35). 

The  phrase  "salted  with  fire"  is  somewhat 
different,  and  yet  it  is  with  little  consistency  that 
writers  of  this  school  lay  so  much  emphasis 
upon  so  "  isolated  "  and  figurative  an  expression. 
Besides,  it  is  not  admitted  by  all  that  the  words 
refer  to  the  future  life  at  all;  and  if  they  do,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  sacrifice  (to  which 
allusion  is  made,  see  Lev.  ii,  13)  was  not  salted 
for  its  own  sake,  but  as  a  symbol  of  cleansing 
for  the  people.  For  further  consideration  of 
this  most  difficult  passage,  the  reader  must  be 
referred  to  the  various  commentaries  and  kin- 
dred works. 

Another  fact  that  is  urged  to  prove  that  the 
future  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  remedial  is 
that  which  is  recorded  in  First  Corinthians,  fifth 
chapter  and  fifth  verse,  concerning  the  offender 
who  was  to  be  delivered  unto  Satan  for  the  de- 
struction of  the  flesh,  that  his  spirit  might  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  (Compare 
I  Tim.  i,  20.)  It  is  said  that  "  this  wretched 
Corinthian  was,  as  we  know,  redeemed  by  his 
very  condemnation,  and  delivered  from  the 
power  o/  the  devil  by  being  delivered  into  the 
power  of  the  devil"  (2  Cor.  ii,  5-11).  The 


84  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

inference  is  made  from  this  case  that  when  the 
wicked  are  delivered  unto  Satan  in  the  judgment 
it  is  with  a  like  beneficent  purpose. 

In  response,  besides  referring  to  tne  unwar- 
ranted assumption  which  bases  a  doctrine  of  the 
future  life  upon  God's  dealings  with  men  in  this 
life,  we  may  say  :  (i)  The  express  object  of  the 
present  deliverance  unto  Satan  of  this  man  was 
that  the  flesh  might  be  destroyed  and  the  spirit 
"saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  Why 
this  present  concern  except  on  the  assumption 
that  without  the  present  destruction  of  the  flesh 
the  spirit  would  be  lost  in  the  day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus?  (2)  Being  delivered  unto  Satan  could 
not  mean  the  same  as  "  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire"  "prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels." 
The  act  of  the  Corinthian  Church  was  an  eccle- 
siastical act  of  excommunication.  This  seems 
to  have  been  the  import  of  the  phrase  "  deliver 
such  a  one  unto  Satan,"  so  far  as  the  Corinthian 
society  had  to  do  with  the  matter.  Surely  that 
Church  had  no  other  power.  By  this  excom- 
munication, and  consequent  surrendering  of  this 
wicked  one  unto  Satan,  whom  he  had  already 
been  serving,  or,  in  other  words,  by  the  rebuke 
of  the  Church,  and  being  left  to  the  unrestrained 
working  of  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  Paul  hoped  (and 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  85 

he  did  not  hope  in  vain)  that  the  fallen  brother 
might  be  restored. 

But  we  have  a  dogmatic  controversy  with  this 
doctrine.  If  future  punishment  is  remedial, 
what  did  Christ  die  to  redeem  us  from  ?  Surely 
not  from  a  necessary  remedy;  and  Universalists 
such  as  Mr.  Cox  say  that  future  punishment  is 
necessary  as  a  remedy.  But  they  say  future 
punishment  is  also  retributive.  Then,  are  we 
saved  from  the  retributive  element  of  punish- 
ment, and  left  to  endure  it  for  the  remedial  ef- 
fect ?  Shall  \ve  thus  split  the  intent  of  future 
punishment?  And  if  so,  what  effect  of  sin  are 
we  practically  redeemed  from  ?  What  is  the 
retributive  element  of  future  punishment  as 
separate  from  the  remedial  in  the  punishment 
itself?  We  can  conceive  the  twofold  intent  of 
punishment,  but  cannot  conceive  a  redemption 
from  an  intent  while  the  punishment  yet  re- 
mains. The  outcome  is,  we  are  not  redeemed 
from  punishment  or  penalty,  and,  indeed,  that 
we  have  no  proper  redemption  at  all  on  this  sup- 
position. If  future  punishment  is  a  necessary 
remedy  for  a  life  of  sin,  then  it  in  itself  is  a 
mercy,  and  needs  no  mercy  to  redeem  from  it. 
God's  method  of  salvation  is  thus  not  by  for- 
giveness through  a  merciful  atonement,  but  by 


86  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

development  and  purification  through  a  beneficent 
system  of  punishment.  The  result  is,  the  atone- 
ment as  a  means  of  forgiveness  is  a  superfluity 
in  the  divine  economy.  Surely  a  conclusion 
with  such  disastrous  results  to  the  scriptural 
doctrine  of  redemption  cannot  be  true. 

This  needs  to  be  insisted  on.  The  Universal- 
ist,  from  his  own  premises  and  conclusions,  ad- 
mits this  result,  for  men  must  undergo  all  their 
penalty  incurred  as  a  necessary  remedy.  If  they 
undergo  the  penalty  of  sin,  from  what  are  they 
redeemed?  From  the  power  of  sin?  Well, 
suppose  so ;  but  then,  not  through  Christ,  but 
through  suffering.  Suffering  is  the  great  healer 
and  restorer.  But  we  insist  that  if  there  is  any 
redemption  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  it  cannot  come 
through  the  endurance  of  the  penalty.  This  is 
paying  the  penalty,  not  being  delivered  from  it. 
There  is  no  place  for  a  true  atonement  on  this  sup- 
position in  the  Restoration  ist's  plan  of  salvation.* 

6.  Argument  is  attempted  from  certain  Old 
Testament  analogies.  It  is  alleged  that  as  the 
Jews  misread  the  Old  Testament  predictions  con- 

*  It  is  only  consistent  in  Mr.  Cox  when  he  says  :  "  For  myself, 
I  believe  every  sin  must  receive  its  due  punishment  "  (Salvatot 
MuMcfi,  p.  227).  Not  only  is  this  so  of  the  sins  of  the  wicked, 
according  to  this  writer,  but  also  of  those  of  the  righteous  (ibid., 
pp.  150-158). 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  87 

earning  the  Messiah,  and,  consequently,  were  not 
ready  to  receive  him  when  he  came,  having  falsely 
learned  to  look  for  a  temporal  Messiah  and  king- 
dom (for  which  expectation  there  was  some 
ground  in  the  apparent  teaching  of  the  older 
Scriptures),  so  we  are  to  learn,  in  the  matter  of  his 
second  coming  to  judgment,  not  to  look  so  much 
at  the  surface  teaching  of  the  new  Scriptures,  lest 
we  make  a  similar  mistake,  but  at  the  deeper  and 
more  "  spiritual  "  meaning.  It  is  suggested  that 
as  the  few  only  perceived  the  real  spiritual  sig- 
nification of  the  first  advent,  while  the  great 
body  of  the  Jews — including  priests  and  scribes — 
falsely  read  into  the  Scriptures  their  temporal 
expectation  concerning  the  Messiah,  so  the 
"few"  only  to-day  seem  to  be  able  to  grasp  the 
deep  spiritual  import  of  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  second  advent.  This 
"  spiritual  interpretation  "  is  to  be  applied  to 
our  understanding  of  the  language  and  terms 
that  are  used  concerning  the  future  punishment 
of  the  wicked.  The  result  will  be  a  doctrine  of 
final  universal  restoration  (Cox,  ut  supra,  pp. 
229-237).  Others  would  gather  rays  of  hope 
from  such  facts  as  the  universal  purpose  of  God 
in  the  election  of  the  Jews,  and  in  the  laws  of 
the  first-fruits  and  the  first-born.  As  the  Jews 


88  FUTURE   RETRIBU7ION. 

were  selected  from  among  the  nations,  not  to  be 
the  exclusive  recipients  of  God's  favors,  hut  to 
be  bearers  of  them  to  others  (Gen.  xxii,  18),  and 
as  the  first-fruits  were  the  promise  and  pledge 
of  a  larger  ingathering,  and  the  first-born  had 
certain  relations  of  helpfulness  toward  the  later- 
born  for  which  he  was  given  a  "  double  portion  " 
of  the  inheritance,  so  the  "  elect  "  of  Christ  and 
the  "  first-fruits  "  and  "  first-born  "  with  him 
have  similar  missions  of  mercy  to  the  non-elect 
and  larger  harvest  and  later-born  in  the  world's 
redemption,  which  missions  are  to  be  fulfilled, 
not  wholly  in  time,  or  the  "  age  "  that  now  is, 
but  through  the  "  ages  to  come."  All  shall  at 
last  be  saved.  So  slight  a  fact  as  the  redemption 
of  an  ass  by  a  lamb  (Exod.  xiii,  12,  13)  must 
have  its  New  Testament  analogy,  and  we  are  to 
read  in  the  fact  the  "  eternal  purpose  "  of  God  for 
the  restoration  at  last  of  the  meanest  and  most 
worthless  by  the  ministry  of  the  good  and  the 
pure  (Jukes,  Restitution  of  All  Things,  pp.  27-68). 
As  to  the  first  analogy  claimed  in  the  interest 
of  final  universal  restoration,  it  may  be  said  in 
response:  (i)  The  analogy  would  be  truer  if  the 
mistake  of  the  Jews  were  urged  as  a  rebuke  to 
the  too  temporal  anticipations  of  those  Chris- 
tians who  are  looking  for  a  thousand  years'  reign 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  89 

of  Christ  on  the  earth  before  the  judgment.     (2) 

'The   Jews  were    not   mistaken  in   looking  for  a 

temporal,   or  earthly,  kingdom   of  the    Messiah, 

but  in  looking  for  the  kind  of  a  kingdom  thev 

o  o  -* 

expected.  Christ  has  a  temporal  kingdom  on 
earth.  He  reigns  and  rules  in  his  Church.  The 
Jews,  through  unbelief,  have  excluded  themselves 
from  participation  in  it,  and  from  sharing  for  the 
present  in  its  more  direct  privileges,  although, 
by  and  by,  "  all  Israel  [that  is,  Israel  as  a  people, 
and  not  in  individual  cases  only  as  in  the  days 
of  Paul]  shall  be  saved  "  (Rom.  xi,  26).  (3)  The 
word  "  spiritual  "  is  not  the  proper  word  to  use 
in  the  matter  of  plain  New  Testament  state- 
ments concerning  the  lost.  If  the  language  on 
which  the  orthodox  doctrine  is  based  were 
wholly,  or  largely,  figurative,  the  word  might 
with  some  propriety  be  used  ;  but  not  so  in  the 
case  of  language  that  is  so  plain  and  simple  as  it 
is  in  this  case.  The  word  "  spiritual  "  in  this 
connection  is  an  unadulterated  device  resorted  to 
as  a  convenient  method  to  weaken  the  terrible 
force  of  the  straightforward  teaching  of  the 
divine  word. 

As  to  the  other  analogies  urged,  several  re- 
marks may  be  made. 

I.  As  to  the  inference  drawn  from  the  election 


90  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

of  Israel  for  a  world-wide  mission.  This  mission 
may  be  aptly  and  appropriately  urged  as  a. lesson 
for  the  Christian  Church  in  its  mission  of  preach- 
ing the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  Here  the 
analogy  holds  good  ;  not  to  an  assumed  mission 
of  the  saved  to  the  unsaved  in  the  other  world. 
The  promise,  accordingly,  that  in  Abraham's  seed 
(Christ,  Gal.  iii,  16)  "  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  " 
should  be  blessed  (Gen.  xxii,  18),  was  a  promise 
for  the  nations,  which  is  being  gloriously  fulfilled 
in  the  Christianization  of  the  world. 

2.  As  to  the  first-born  and  first-fruits,  it  must 
be  said,  (i)  If  the  plain  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament  is  to  be  any  guide  in  our  interpreta- 
tion of  the  lessons  drawn  from  these  facts,  they 
lend  no  support  to  the  doctrine  we  are  combat- 
ing. The  places  where  the  term  "  first-born  "  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament  are  Rom.  viii,  29; 
Col.  i,  15,  18;  Heb.xii,23-  In  the  first  instance, 
the  reference  is  to  Christ  "  the  first-born  among 
many  brethren;"  the  second,  to  Christ  "  the 
first-born  of  all  creation  ;  "  the  third,  to  him  as 
"  the  first-born  from  the  dead  ;  "  the  last,  to  the 
"church  of  the  first-born  " — that  is,  the  Church 
of  the  Hebrews.  In  none  of  these  instances  is 
there  any  semblance  of  a  reference  to  future 
restoration  of  the  lost.  They,  therefore,  lend 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  91 

no  support  to  the  doctrine.  The  places  where 
the  term  "  first-fruits  "  is  used  are  Rom.  viii, 
23;  xi,  16;  xvi,  5;  I  Cor.  xv,  2O,  23;  xvi,  15; 
Jas.  i,  18;  Rev.  xiv,  4.  Examination  will  show 
that  in  none  of  these  instances,  likewise,  is  there 
any  reference  to  this  doctrine,  or  the  future 
life.  (2)  The  doctrine  of  the  "ages"  on  which 
this  teaching  is  based  is  not  tenable.  If  refer- 
ence is  made  to  God's  "eternal  purpose"  (Gr. 
"  purpose  of  the  ages,"  Eph.  iii,  1 1)  for  proof,  we 
reply,  The  purpose  here  referred  to  is  concerning 
the  ages  that  are  past,  not  those  of  the  future. 
The  verse  reads,  "  God,  according  to  the  eternal 
purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
Lord."  If  it  be  said  that  "  in  the  ages  to  come  " 
God  will  "  show  the  exceeding  riches  of  his  grace 
in  kindness,"  we  reply,  by  express  limitation, 
toward  them  that  are  "  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (Eph.  ii, 
7).  For  the  rest,  we  refer  to  the  fact  already  re- 
marked upon,  that  the  plural  phrases  containing 
forms  of  al&v  are  rhetorical  expressions  used  to 
intensify  the  thought  of  eternity. 

II.  Specific  passages  of  Scripture  used  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  universal  restoration. 

i.  The  first  class  of  passages  of  this  kind  that 
are  made  to  do  yeoman  service  for  this  doctrine 
are  those  that  exhibit  the  benevolent  and  uni- 


02  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

versal  provision  and  purpose  of  God  concerning 
man's  redemption.  They  are  as  follows :  "  For 
if  by  the  trespass  of  the  one  the  many  died,  much 
more  did  the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  the 
grace  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  abound  unto 
the  many"  (Rom.  v,  15).  "So  then  as  through 
one  trespass  the  judgment  came  unto  all  men  to 
condemnation  ;  even  so  through  one  act  of  right- 
eousness the  free  gift  came  unto  all  men  to  justifi- 
cation of  life  "  (ibid.,  verse  18;  compare  the  whole 
passage,  12-21).  "  But  all  things  are  of  God, 
who  reconciled  us  to  himself  through  Christ,  and 
gave  unto  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  ;  to 
wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself,  not  reckoning  unto  them  their 
trespasses,  and  having  committed  unto  us  the 
word  of  reconciliation  "  (2  Cor.  v,  18,  19).  "  Be- 
hold, the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world  !  "  (John  i,  29).  "  And  we  have 
beheld  and  bear  witness  that  the  Father  hath 
sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world  " 
(i  John  iv,  14),  etc. 

Concerning  these  passages  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  reply,  with  Muller,  that  they  "  cannot  be 
made  to  sanction  the  idea  of  universal  restora- 
tion, unless  we  adopt  the  principle  that  the  final 
issue  of  the  divine  purposes  must  coincide  with 


OBJECTIONS   AND   ARGUMENTS.  93 

their  primary  tendency  and  design ;  in  other 
words,  that  God  could  not  arrange  his  purposes 
according  to  the  free  action  of  man  in  relation  to 
them  "  (CJiristian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol.  ii,  p.  426) ; 
adding,  simply,  that  they  are  to  be  "  studied  in 
their  connection,"  and  according  to  the  "  analogy 
of  faith."  According  to  this  last  hermeneutical 
law,  as  general  statements  they  are  to  be  limited 
by  other  limiting  passages  of  the  divine  word,  as, 
for  example,  those  which  declare  the  conditions 
of  their  fulfillment  or  realization.  These  limiting 
conditions  are  not  doubtful.  "  Except  ye  re- 
pent ye  shall  all  in  like  manner  perish  '  (Luke 
xiii,  3).  "  That  whosoever  believeth  may  in  him 
have  eternal  life  "  (John  iii,  15).  "Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves  "  (John  vi, 
53),  etc. 

2.  Another  set  of  passages  that  are  used  to 
prove  this  doctrine  concern  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  and  the  "  consummation  of  the  world  " 
(ovvrekeia  TOV  cuwvoc).  Chief  among  these  are : 
"  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall 
all  be  made  alive"  (i  Cor.  xv,  22).  "  For  he 
must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  his  enemies  under 
his  feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  abolished 
is  death"  (ibid.,  verses  25,  26).  "And  when  all 


94  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

things  have  been  subjected  unto  him,  then  shall 
the  Son  also  himself  be  subjected  to  him  that  did 
subject  all  things  unto  him,  that  God  may  be  all 
in  all"  (ibid.,  verse  28 ;  compare  the  entire  passage, 
20-28).  "  Whom  the  heaven  must  receive  until 
the  times  of  restoration  [Authorized  Version, 
"restitution"]  of  all  things,  whereof  God  spake 
by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets  which  have 
been  since  the  world  began  "  (Acts  iii,  21).  These 
passages  demand  separate  treatment. 

"  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive."  These  words  are  simi- 
lar to  much  of  the  language  in  the  fifth  of  Ro- 
mans, the  one  having  reference  to  physical  death 
and  resurrection,  the  other  to  moral  or  spiritual. 
The  emphasis  which  writers  of  this  class  lay 
upon  them  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  Conse- 
quently, the  observations  made  upon  the  pas- 
sages in  Romans  will  equally  apply  here  (p.  92). 
It  is  necessary  to  add  further,  simply,  that  the 
apostle,  in  the  entire  chapter,  is  writing  to  Chris- 
tian believers  concerning  the  reality  of  the  res- 
urrection. There  had  grown  up  in  the  Church 
at  Corinth  some  doubt  as  to  this  doctrine,  and 
Paul  would  re-establish  and  confirm  their  faith  in 
it.  He  does  not  attempt  to  prove  the  univer- 
sality of  the  resurrection,  but  simply  seeks  to 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  95 

establish  the  fact  of  the  resurrection.  His  par- 
ticular thought  was  with  reference  to  the  resur- 
rection of  the  righteous  dead  (witness  this  in  the 
general  drift  of  the  whole  chapter,  and  in  such 
particular  statements  as  inverses  51,  52,  58),  as 
was  his  thought  in  writing  of  the  same  doctrine, 
from  other  reasons,  to  the  Thessalonians  (i  Thess. 
iv,  13-18);  and,  proving  the  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, he  asserts  that,  "  as  in  Adam  all  [meaning 
the  righteous]  die,  so  also  in  Christ  shall  all  [the 
righteous]  be  made  alive."  And  at  all  events, 
there  is  no  ground  in  these  words  for  asserting 
the  doctrine  of  universal  restoration  ;  for  other 
Scriptures  which  teach  the  universality  of  the 
resurrection  teach  also  that  the  issue  is  a  two- 
fold result — some  are  raised  to  "  life,"  and  others 
are  raised  to  condemnation.  "  Marvel  not  at 
this :  for  the  hour  cometh,  in  which  all  that  are 
in  the  tombs  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come 
forth  ;  they  that  have  done  good,  unto  the  res- 
urrection of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done  ill, 
unto  the  resurrection  of  judgment  "  (John  v,  28, 
29.*  Compare  Dan.  xii,  2). 

*  It  is  useless  to  try  to  prove  that  our  Lord  in  this  case  was 
speaking  of  a  spiritual,  or  moral,  resurrection  ;  for,  if  so,  wherein 
is  the  difference  between  those  raised  to  "  life  "  and  those  raised 
to  "  judgment  ?  "  Also,  the  phrase  "  marvel  not  at  this"  marks 
a  change  of  thought  from  the  moral  resurrection  spoken  of  in 


96  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

"  For  he  must  reign,  till  he  hath  put  all  his  ene- 
mies under  his  feet.  The  last  enemy  that  shall 
be  abolished  is  death."  The  facts  involved  in 
this  text  and  its  connections  have  already  been 
referred  to  in  our  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  future 
punishment.  We  refer  to  them  again  in  this 
connection  because  Universalists  lay  so  much 
stress  upon  the  passage  given  to  prove  their  doc- 
trine. They  are  as  follows:  The  end  of  the 
mediatorial  reign  of  Christ  accompanies  the  de- 
struction of  the  "  last  enemy, "  and  the  last  enemy 
that  is  to  be  destroyed  is  physical  death,  in  and 
by  the  resurrection,  leaving  the  "  asonian  pun- 
ishment," pronounced  at  the  judgment,  to  follow 
this  destruction  of  the  last  enemy. 

There  is  not  the  shadow  of  a  reason  for  the 
statement  in  Martensen,  that  when  Paul  says 
"  'the  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death  " 
— therefore  the  other,  the  second  death ;  be- 
cause otherwise  there  would  still  remain  an  un- 

verse  25,  and  that  in  the  verses  we  are  considering.  Our  Lord's 
hearers  were  exhorted  not  to  marvel  at  the  soul  resurrection  from 
the  death  of  sin,  because  the  time  would  come  when  even  the 
bodies  of  men  would  be  raised  from  the  tomb.  Again,  the  dif- 
ference in  the  two  cases  is  shown  by  the  two  phrases,  "  the  hour 
cometh,  and  now  is,"  in  the  first  case,  and  simply  "  the  hour 
cometh,"  in  the  second — the  one  was  present,  the  other  future. 
Besides,  it  is  forced  and  artificial  to  identify  the  "  dead  "  of  the 
first  instance  with  "all  that  are  in  tombs"  of  the  second. 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  97 

conquerable  enemy"  (Christian  Dogmatics,  p. 
475).  The  fact  is  in  proof  of  the  very  reverse  of 
this,  as  we  have  seen.  The  argument  of  Mar- 
tensen,  moreover,  is  a  clear  case  of  potitio  princi- 
pii.  His  assertion  is  to  the  effect  that  all  men 
are  to  be  restored  because  Paul  says  the  "  last 
enemy  to  be  destroyed  is  death,"  and  that  Paul's 
expression  includes  the  "  second  death  "  because 
otherwise  all  men  would  not  be  restored.  We 
are  willing  that  the  Universalist  shall  have  all 
the  defense  he  can  get  from  this  sort  of  logic. 
We  know  his  need  of  it. 

But  to  reiterate  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  the 
order  of  events  at  the  consummation  of  the 
world  (Matt,  xxviii,  20)  is  as  follows  :  (i)  The 
parousia,  or  coming  of  Christ ;  (2)  the  resur- 
rection of  the  dead;  (3)  the  judgment;  (4) 
the  end  of  Christ's  mediatorial  reign,  when  the 
kingdom  will  be  delivered  up  to  the  Father. 
These  events  occur  at  the  same  time,  or  in  im- 
mediate succession.*  The  wicked,  therefore, 


*  No  account  is  taken  here  of  the  millennium,  for  in  any  case 
the  order  of  events  is  the  same  ;  and  the  general  resurrection, 
when  the  last  enemy  is  to  be  destroyed,  follows  the  parousia 
(however  long  or  short  the  interval),  and  comes  before  the  judg- 
ment. The  significance  of  the  irpuTt]  fb&rrtUK?,  and  other  facts 
and  difficulties  connected  with  the  millennium,  do  not  enter, 
therefore,  for  consideration  here. 
7 


98  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

are  to  go  away  into  aeonian  punishment  after, 
or  at  the  consummation,  of  all  things.  There 
remains,  therefore,  for  them  no  more  hope. 
Their  judgment  to  death  is  part  of  the  consum- 
mation of  all  things. 

"  And  when  all  things  have  been  subjected 
unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  sub- 
jected to  him  that  did  subject  all  things  unto  him, 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all."  The  most  that  is  said 
in  this  passage  is  that  all  things  shall  be  sub- 
jected unto  Christ,  and,  finally,  Christ  to  God. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  statement  to  lend  the  least 
support  to  the  doctrine  of  universal  restoration. 

Much  is  made  of  the  phrase,  "  that  God  may 
be  all  in  all. ' '  One  writer  comments  thus  :  "  '  That 
God  may  be,'  not  all  in  some,  but  '  all  in  all.' ' 
Nothing  could  show  the  perversity  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  writers  of  this  class  better  than  this. 
Not  only  is  the  whole  context  ignored,  as  is 
oftenest  the  case  with  these  writers,  but  the 
manifest  meaning  of  "  divine  supremacy"  is  also 
overlooked.  The  words  do  not  mean  that  God 
may  be  all  in  all  persons,  but  simply  that  he  may 
be  supreme.  (Compare  Eph.  i,  23.) 

"Whom  the  heaven  must  receive  until  the 
times  of  restoration  of  all  things,  whereof  God 
spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets  which 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  99 

have  been  since  the  world  began."  As  is  well 
known,  it  is  this  text  that  furnishes  the  often-used 
and,  exegetically,  much-abused  phrase,  a-nona- 
rdoraoig  -ndvrwv — "restitution  of  all  things." 
This  phrase  has  come  to  be  used  by  some  writers 
as  synonomous  with  universal  restoration.  Its 
abuse  will  be  seen  when  it  is  remembered  that 
there  is  good  ground  for  the  assertion  that  the 
word  aTTOKardaraaig  does  not  mean  restitution  or 
restoration  in  this  place,  in  any  proper  sense  of 
the  word,  at  all,  but "  fulfillment,"  having  reference 
to  the  fulfillment  "  of  all  things,  whereof  [or 
which,  wv]  God  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy 
prophets  since  the  world  began."  (Compare  Matt, 
xvii,  II.)  But  if  the  word  be  accepted  to  mean 
"  restitution  "  or  "  restoration,"  that  it  cannot 
include  the  idea  of  the  final  universal  restoration 
of  the  lost  is  manifest  from  the  following  fact, 
namely,  that  "  the  times  of  the  restoration  of  all 
things"  are  to  be  fulfilled  at  the  coming  of  our 
Lord.  "  The  heaven  must  receive  "  him  "  until  " 
then.  The  "  restoration  of  all  things  "  precedes, 
therefore,  the  elg  TOV$  otwvo?  rwv  aluvuv  of  future 
punishment.  Besides,  the  "  prophets  "  have  no- 
where spoken  of  universal  restoration. 

3.  Still  another  class  of  passages  that  are  urged 
in  favor  of  universal  restoration   are  those  that 


100  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

speak  of  the  "  reconciliation  "  or  summing  up 
of  all  things  in  Christ,  whether  they  be  things 
in  heaven  or  things  on  earth.  The  two  most 
explicit  passages  of  this  class  are  Eph.  i,  9,  10, 
and  Col.  i,  19,  20.  They  are  as  follows:  "  Hav- 
ing made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  his  will, 
according  to  his  good  pleasure  which  he  purposed 
in  him  unto  a  dispensation  of  the  fullness  of  the 
times,  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ  \ava,Ke(f>a- 
hai&aaadai  rd  rrdvra  KV  TGJ  Xptarui],  the  things  in  the 
heavens,  and  the  things  upon  the  earth."  "  For 
it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father  that  in 
him  should  all  the  fullness  dwell ;  and  through 
him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself,  having 
made  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross ; 
through  him,  I  say,  whether  things  upon  the 
earth,  or  things  in  the  heavens." 

We  gladly  recognize  the  deep  and  glorious 
truth  of  these  words.  Christ  is  a  cosmic  Being, 
having  a  universal  relation  to  all  things,  both  in 
the  heavens  and  on  the  earth.  Just  what  that 
relation  to  other  worlds  than  ours  is,  except  that 
it  must  be  beneficent,  we  cannot  know.  The 
two  words  used  in  the  above  quoted  passages 
(dvanefjiakaiob),  dnoKaTakkdooui)  furnish  us  with  a 
general  statement  of  some  beneficent  relation 
to  the  heavens  as  well  as  to  the  earth  ;  but  just 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  101 

what  we,  perhaps,  in  its  fullness,  will  never  know. 
There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  efficacy 
of  the  cross,  except  in  its  moral  lesson  to  other 
intelligences,  extends  beyond  our  own  world,  since 
it  was  wrought  on  earth  and  in  our  nature  ;  and 
just  what  the  special  implication  of  the  recon- 
ciliation and  re-heading,  or  summing  up,  of  all 
things  "  in  the  heavens  "  may  be,  we  cannot  know. 
Our  reconciliation  to  God  is  through  the  sacrifice 
of  the  cross  ;  how  and  in  what  sense  *  that  of  the 
heavens  is  effected  we  are  not  told.  The  same 
remark  is  to  be  made  concerning  the  summing 
up  of  all  things  in  the  heavens  in  Christ,  since 
this  is  most  likely  the  same  as  the  reconciliation  ; 
or,  at  least,  the  one  is  involved  in  the  other. 
But  whatever  the  significance  of  this  reconcil- 

*  The  reconciliation  of  things  on  earth  is  distincily  said  to  be 
"peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross."  This  divine  and  gra- 
cious work  seems  to  be  separate  in  the  thought  of  the  text  from 
the  undefined  and  general  reconciliation  of  all  things  in  heaven 
and  on  earth.  The  reconciliation  on  earth  seems  separately  and 
specially  given — "having  made  peace,"  etc. — the  other  is  not. 
Besides,  if  we  assume  that  other  worlds  are  reconciled,  as  is  ours, 
by  the  death  of  the  cross,  we  must  assume  universal  sinfulness 
in  the  universe  ;  for  our  reconciliation  is  through  an  infinite  sac- 
rifice on  account  of  sin.  But  some,  at  least,  of  the  angels  we 
know  have  not  sinned.  This  is  involved  in  the  expression  in 
Jude  6,  "The  angels  which  kept  not  their  own  principality,  but 
left  their  proper  habitation,"  etc.  Some  did  keep  "their  own 
principality."  Still  further,  that  our  atonement  is  not  for  the 
angels  is  emphatically  involved  in  Heb.  ii,  1 6. 


102  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

iation  and  summing  up  of  all  things  in  Christ 
may  be,  and  the  specific  agency  of  their  realiza- 
tion, these  texts  can  lend  no  support  to  the  doc- 
trine we  are  opposing.  One  manifest  reason  is, 
that  they  say  nothing  about  it.  Another  is,  that 
they  limit  the  reconciliation  to  the  things  in  the 
heavens  and  on  the  earth.  The  comment  of 
Dr.  Jukes  is  evidently  coined  for  the  emergency  : 
"'Whether  they  be  things  in  heaven' — that  is, 
the  spirit-world,  where  the  conflict  with  Satan 
yet  is — '  or  things  on  earth ' — that  is,  this  out- 
ward world,  where  death  now  reigns,  and  where 
even  God's  elect  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath, 
even  as  other  men  "  *  (ut  supra,  p.  22). 

But  we  insist  upon  it,  if  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal restoration  is  true,  that  the  great  apos- 
tle did  not  say,  "And  things  under  the  earth," 
in  these  passages,  is  not  to  be  accounted  for. 
What  a  magnificent  opportunity  Paul  had  to 
teach  this  doctrine  had  he  so  desired,  and  how 
natural  it  would  have  been  to  do  so  if  it  were 
true !  The  limitation  seems  intentional  when 

*  The  unreliableness  of  this  writer  as  an  exegete  is  demon- 
strated in  the  turn  of  thought  he  gives  to  the  passage  referred  to 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  quotation,  as  in  many  other  instances. 
In  this  case  Dr.  Jukes  says:  "Where  even  God's  elect  are  by 
nature  children  of  wrath,"  etc. ;  whereas  Paul  says,  "  were  by 
nature  children  of  wrath." 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.          103 

we  consider  the  fact  that  this  apostle  in  other 
connections,  and  where  the  thought  is  of  univer- 
sal subjugation  to  Christ,  without  specifying 
whether  it  is  voluntary  or  compulsory  (Phil,  ii, 
9,  10*),  uses  the  very  phrase,  "and  things 
under  the  earth."  As  Paul  was  familiar  with  the 
fact  that  "  every  knee  "  in  heaven  and  earth  and 
hell  should  bow  to  Christ,  why,  we  urge,  did  he 
not  say  "  and  things  under  the  earth  "  when 
speaking  of  the  re-heading  and  reconciliation  of 
all  things  in  Christ  if  the  Universalist  is  right  ? 
The  conclusion  is  patent  and  inevitable.  Paul, 
who  had  already  declared  that  the  wicked  "  shall 
suffer  punishment,  even  eternal  destruction  from 
the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his 
might  "  (2  Thess.  i,  9),  knew  that  for  the  lost  there 
was  "  no  more  a  sacrifice  for  sins  "  (Heb.  x,  26). 
4.  Still  another  class  of  passages  that  are  used 
by  the  Universalist  to  support  his  claim  are 
some  that  relate  to  the  universal  conquest  of  the 
Gospel,  or  that  show  the  world-wide  mission  of 

*  That  the  thought  in  this  text  implies  the  universal  supremacy 
of  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  without  specifying  what  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  subjection,  is  manifest  to  all  but  those  who  insist 
on  reading  their  doctrine  of  restoration  into  it.  Bowing  the 
knee  was  an  act  of  homage  and  subjection  for  both  friendly  and 
unfriendly  subjects.  Moreover,  the  phrase  is  used  in  Rom.  xiv, 
10-12.  with  special  reference  to  the  "judgment."  (Compare  Eph. 
iii,  14  ;  Matt,  xxvii,  29 ;  Isa.  xlv,  23.) 


104:  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

Christianity.  Of  course,  the  Universalist  will 
not  allow  the  claim  involved  in  this  classification  ; 
but  a  slight  examination,  in  most  instances,  will 
show  the  validity  of  it. 

The  chief  passages  of  this  class  are  as  follows: 
"  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed  "  (Gen.  xxii,  18).  "And  so  all 
Israel  shall  be  saved"  (Rom.  xi,  26).  "Who 
willeth  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  and  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  For  there  is  one 
God,  one  Mediator  also  between  God  and  men, 
himself  man,  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  himself  a 
ransom  for  all;  the  testimony  to  be  borne  in  its 
own  times"  (i  Tim.  ii,  4-6).  "And  I,  if  I  be 
lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto 
myself"  (John  xii,  32). 

The  first  two  passages  have  already  been  re- 
ferred to  in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  and 
need  but  a  moment's  consideration  here.  That 
the  promise  to  Abraham,  that  in  his  seed  the 
world  should  be  blessed,  was  a  promise  which 
had  reference  to  the  universal  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity, may  be  proved  by  the  fact  that  it  con- 
cerned the  "nations,"  and  that  Paul  so  applies 
it  (Gal.  iii,  8).  That  that  referring  to  the  salva- 
tion of  "  all  Israel "  is  to  be  understood  as  refer- 
ring to  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  as  a  people 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  105 

to  Christianity  may  be  proved  by  reference  to 
the  entire  passage  in  which  the  words  occur 
(Rom.  xi).  Here  it  will  be  found  that  the  apostle 
is  contrasting  and  explaining  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles  and  the  rejection  of  Israel ;  not 
every  individual  Israelite,  but  Israel  as  a  people. 
A  "  remnant "  had  already  been  saved,  "  ac- 
cording to  the  election  of  grace  "  (verse  5),  by 
£\ith  ;  but  Israel  as  a  people  had  been  "  broken 
off"  through  unbelief  (verse  20).  Paul,  however, 
foresees  the  time  when  "  all  Israel  shall  be  saved." 
or  when  Israel  as  a  people  shall  be  restored  to 
the  covenanted  privileges  from  which  they  had 
excluded  themselves. 

The  reference  of  the  other  two  passages  is 
likewise  unmistakable.  That  the  passage  in  First 
Timothy  refers  to  the  conversion  of  the  world  will 
be  seen  by  including  the  seventh  verse  :  "  Where- 
unto  I  was  appointed  a  preacher  and  an  apostle 
(I  speak  the  truth,  I  lie  not),  a  teacher  of  the 
Gentiles  in  faith  and  truth."  Paul's  reference  in 
this  verse  to  the  Gentiles  shows  the  universal 
thought  he  has  of  the  Gospel  when  he  says  Christ 
was  given  "  a  ransom  for  all ;  the  testimony  to 
be  borne  in  its  own  times."  The  whole  context 
(verses  1-8)  is  helpful  to  the  same  exposition. 
The  import  of  John  xii,  32,  may  be  judged  from 


106  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  explicit  reference  of  verse  31 :  "  Now  is  the 
judgment  of  this  world :  now  shall  the  prince 
of  this  world  be  cast  out,"  preceding  immediately 
the  words  of  the  text.  The  occasion  also  shows 
beyond  any  doubt  what  thought  our  Lord  had 
in  mind  when  he  uttered  the  words.  Certain 
Greeks  (Gentiles)  had  come  to  see  him.  This 
gives  rise  to  a  discourse  by  Christ,  the  leading 
thought  of  which  is,  as  Tholuck  expresses  it,  "  in 
the  longing  of  these  Gentiles  is  an  anticipation 
of  the  future  conversion  of  the  world."  The  "all 
men,"  then,  of  this  passage  is  synonomous  with 
the  "  all  nations  "  of  Gen.  xxii,  18,  and  the  "  all  " 
of  i  Tim.  ii,  4-6. 

5.  Two  passages  of  Scripture  urged  in  favor 
of  this  doctrine,  that  form  a  class  by  themselves, 
are  Matt,  v,  26 :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  Thou 
shalt  by  no  means  come  out  thence,  till  thou 
have  paid  the  last  farthing ;  "  and  Luke  xii,  47, 
48 :  "  And  that  servant,  which  knew  his  lord's 
will,  and  made  not  ready,  nor  did  according  to 
his  will,  shall  be  beaten  with  many  stripes ;  but 
he  that  knew  not,  and  did  things  worthy  of 
stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  few  stripes."  It  is 
affirmed  that  both  of  these  passages  involve  the 
cessation  of  punishment. 

It  is  to  be  said  :  (i)  If  they  teach  the  cessation 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  107 

of  punishment  in  the  cases  to  which  they  refer, 
they  would  not,  therefore,  teach  universal  restora- 
tion. The  most,  in  any  case,  that  can  be  claimed 
from  them  is  that  they  teach  the  restoration  of 
some.  We  would  then  have  both  "  eternal  "  and 
"temporal"  future  punishment.  (2)  But  it  is  to 
be  questioned  whether  the  first  passage  (as,  per- 
haps, Matt,  xii,  32)  expresses  more  than  an  "  em- 
phasized negative  "  in  relation  to  the  condition 
of  the  lost.  (3)  The  second  passage  can  be  ex- 
plained, after  the  common  fashion,  to  signify 
degrees  in  punishment  rather  than  duration.  It 
is  confessedly  a  figurative  mode  of  speech,  and 
can,  therefore,  teach  nothing  that  contradicts  oth- 
er and  explicit  declarations  of  the  divine  word. 

6.  Miscellaneous.  There  are  a  few  other  pas- 
sages that  need  brief  consideration  that  cannot  be 
otherwise  classified  than  as  miscellaneous.  These 
are:  "  For  God  hath  shut  up  all  unto  disobe- 
dience, that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all " 
(Rom.  xi,  32);  "  For  to  this  end  Christ  died,  and 
lived  again,  that  he  might  be  Lord  of  both  the 
dead  and  the  living  "  (Rom.  xiv,  9) ;  "  For  to 
this  end  we  labor  and  strive,  because  we  have 
our  hope  set  on  the  living  God,  who  is  the  Sav- 
iour of  all  men,  specially  of  them  that  believe" 
(i  Tim.  iv,  10)  ;  "  And  death  and  Hades  were  cast 


108  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

into  the  lake  of  fire"  (Rev.  xx,  14);  "And  he 
shall  wipe  away  every  tear  from  their  eyes;  and 
death  shall  be  no  more  ;  neither  shall  there  be 
mourning,  nor  crying,  nor  pain,  any  more :  the 
first  things  are  passed  away.  And  he  that  sitteth 
on  the  throne  said,  Behold,  I  make  all  things 
new  "  (Rev.  xxi,  4,  5) ;  "  And  there  shall  be  no 
curse  any  more"  (Rev.  xxii,  3).  We  will  con- 
sider these  in  the  order  given. 

"  For  God  hath  shut  up  all  unto  disobedience, 
that  he  might  have  mercy  upon  all."  The  import 
of  this  verse  is  no  doubt  identical  with  that  of 
Rom.  iii,  9:  "For  we  before  laid  to  the  charge 
both  of  Jews  and  Greeks,  that  they  are  all  under 
sin,"  and  Gal.  iii,  22:  "  Howbeit  the  Scripture 
hath  shut  up  all  things  under  sin,  that  the  prom- 
ise by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  might  be  given  to 
them  that  believe."  This  last  passage  distinctly 
limits  the  "  promise  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ "  to 
"  them  that  believe."  This  is  in  keeping  with 
the  whole  teaching  of  Romans  (for  example,  iii, 
21,  22)  and  the  other  Scriptures,  and  must  be 
understood  here. 

"  For  to  this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived  again, 
that  he  might  be  Lord  of  both  the  dead  and  the 
living."  The  apostle  is  teaching  the  duty  of  the 
strong  toward  the  weak,  particularly  in  the  mat- 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  109 

ter  of  eating  meat  and  observing  days.  He  as- 
serts: "He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth 
it  unto  the  Lord :  and  he  that  eateth,  eateth 
unto  the  Lord,  for  he  giveth  God  thanks; 
and  he  that  eateth  not,  unto  the  Lord  he 
eateth  not,  and  giveth  God  thanks.  For 
none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  none  dieth  to 
himself.  For  whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the 
Lord  ;  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the  Lord  : 
\\hether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the 
Lord's  "  (verses  6-8).  And  then  follows  imme- 
diately upon  this  the  verse  we  are  considering. 
The  connections  clearly  show  that  the  lordship 
of  Christ  over  the  dead  and  the  living  is  confined 
by  the  apostle's  thought  in  this  passage  to  be- 
lievers ;  not  that  it  is  intentionally  so  confined, 
but  because  Paul  had  no  occasion  to  think  of  any 
others.  "  Whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord  ; 
or  whether  we  die,  ive  die  unto  the  Lord  :  whether 
we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's." 
Christ  both  "died,  and  lived  again, "that  he  might 
be  Lord  of  his  own,  dead  and  alive.  "Thus  it 
is,"  as  Godet  says,  "  that  he  reigns  simulta- 
neously over  the  two  domains  of  being  through 
which  his  own  are  called  to  pass,  and  that  he  can 
fulfill  his  promise  to  them  (John  x,  28) :  'None 
shall  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand ' "  (Commen- 


110  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

tary,  in  loco).  The  Universalist,  therefore,  can  find 
in  this  passage  no  valid  ground  for  his  doctrine. 
"  For  to  this  end  we  labor  and  strive,  because 
we  have  our  hope  set  on  the  living  God,  who  is 
the  Saviour  of  all  men,  specially  of  them  that 
believe."  As  to  this  passage  it  is  only  necessary 
to  say  that  if  Paul  is  to  be  interpreted  by  him- 
self the  two  phrases,  "  Saviour  of  all  men"  and 
"  specially  of  them  that  believe,"  can  have  no 
doubtful  meaning.  The  first  is  illustrated  by 
such  passages  as  the  following  :  "  Even  so  through 
one  act  of  righteousness  the  free  gift  came  unto 
all  men  to  justification  of  life"  (Rom.  v,  18) ; 
"  For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us  ;  because 
we  thus  judge,  that  one  died  for  all,  therefore 
all  died  ;  and  he  died  for  all,  that  they  which 
live  should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but 
unto  him  who  for  their  sakes  died  and  rose  again  " 
(2  Cor.  v,  14,  15) ;  the  second,  by  these  :  "  For  I 
am  not  ashamed  of  the  gospel  :  for  it  is  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that 
believeth ;  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the 
Greek  "  (Rom.  i,  16);  "  By  their  unbelief  they 
were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  thy  faith  " 
(Rom.  xi,  20).  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men — 
this  the  Scriptures  every-where  gloriously  reveal ; 
but  he  is  also  "specially  "  {jidkiara — "in  the 


OBJECTIONS  AND   ARGUMENTS.  \\\ 

greatest  degree" — that  is,  in  "  the  greatest  and 
fullest  exhibition  of  his  awr^pm,  its  complete  re- 
alization ")  the  Saviour  "  of  them  that  believe." 
This  is  so  here  and  hereafter.  Christ  is  the 
Saviour  of  all  in  his  provisions  of  mercy  and 
grace  ;  of  those  that  believe,  in  the  full  realiza- 
tion of  those  provisions  in  a  saved  experience. 

"And  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire."  It  is  said  this  involves  the  destruc- 
tion of  death  and  Hades.  The  inference  is, 
"  Therefore  the  second  death  and  Gehenna  ;"  this 
latter  from  the  fact  that  Hades,  or  the  under 
world,  includes  Gehenna. 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  refute  this  argument  to 
refer  to  the  verse  immediately  following  the  one 
for  which  so  much  is  claimed.  After  saying 
death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire, 
John  says  :  "  And  if  any  was  not  found  written 
in  the  book  of  life,  he  was  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire  "  (verse  1 5).  It  is  unfortunate  for  the  Univer- 
salist  that  he  cannot  find  a  second  "  lake  of  fire  " 
into  which  this  first  one  is  cast ;  and  if  so  it  would 
not  involve  the  restoration  of  those  cast  into  it. 

Attempted  arguments  like  the  above  simply 
increase  one's  wonder  at  the  manifest  unfairness 
of  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  by  which  the 
doctrine  of  restoration  is  sought  to  be  established. 


112  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

The  last  two  passages  may  be  considered  to- 
gether. "  And  he  shall  wipe  away  every  tear 
from  their  eyes  ;  and  death  shall  be  no  more  ; 
neither  shall  there  be  mourning,  nor  crying,  nor 
pain,  any  more  :  the  first  things  are  passed  away. 
And  he  that  sitteth  on  the  throne  said,  Behold, 
I  make  all  things  new."  "  And  there  shall  be  no 
curse  any  more."  If  the  reader  will  examine  the 
passages  in  their  connections  he  will  find  in  both 
cases  that  after  them  in  the  same  chapter  there 
is  distinct  reference  to  another  state  of  things 
for  the  wicked.  In  the  first  case,  in  chapter  xxi, 
8,  we  have,  "  But  for  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving, 
and  abominable,  and  murderers,  and  fornicators, 
and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  their 
part  shall  be  in  the  lake  that  burneth  with 
fire  and  brimstone ;  which  is  the  second  death." 
In  the  second  case,  in  the  twenty-second  chap- 
ter and  the  fifteenth  verse,  we  have,  "  Without 
are  the  dogs,  and  the  sorcerers,  and  the  fornica- 
tors, and  the  murderers,  and  the  idolaters,  and 
every  one  that  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie."  From 
these  facts  it  must  appear  to  all  that  the  passages 
cited  furnish  no  support  for  the  doctrine  of  resto- 
ration. But  if  examination  is  made  again  it  will 
be  found  that  these  things  are  said  by  explicit 
reference  to  the  righteous.  "  He  that  overcometh 


OBJECTIONS  AND  ARGUMENTS.  113 

shall  inherit  these  things  "  (xxi,  7).  In  the  same 
verse  with  the  second  of  the  two  passages  is  this : 
"  And  his  servants  shall  do  him  service,"  and  fol- 
lowing this  in  the  next  verse  :  "And  they  shall  see 
his  face;  and  his  name  shall  be  on  their  foreheads." 
We  have  now  completed  a  brief  survey  of  the 
leading  objections  and  arguments  of  the  Univer- 
salists.  We  have  not  consciously  omitted  refer- 
ence to  any  important  fact  or  consideration  ;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  have  endeavored  to  deal 
fairly  with  the  doctrine  we  oppose  in  every  case, 
a  hundred  times  wishing  that  we  might  find  in 
the  arguments  of  its  advocates  some  valid 
ground  for  faith  in  it  to  rest  upon.  To  use  a 
common  but  apt  figure,  again  and  again,  like  the 
dove  of  the  ark,  we  have  wandered  over  the 
waste  of  biblical  criticism  on  this  subject,  seek- 
ing some  place  to  rest  our  feet  in  confidence  ; 
but  after  repeated  and  vain  research  we  have 
had  to  return,  on  exegetical  grounds,  to  the  old 
ark  of  the  orthodox  Church,  and  believe  her 
teaching  to  be  that  only  which  will  bear  the  test 
of  the  Scriptures.  For  no  "larger  hope  "  can 
we  desert  this  stronghold  of  the  truth  ;  and  in 
this  confidence  it  shall  be  our  aim,  whether  our 
pleasure  or  not  (Jon.  iii,  2),  to  persuade  men  to 

"  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come  "  (Matt,  iii,  7). 
8 


"And  if  any  man  shall  take  away  from  the  words  of  the 
book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take  away  his  part  out  of  the 
book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy  city,  and  from  the  things 
which  are  written  in  this  book." — Rev.  xxii,  19. 


CHAPTER  III. 

New  Testament   Terminology  Respecting  Future  Ret- 
ribution. 

IT  is  not  our  conviction  that  the  words  of  the 
Bible  in  either  their  classical  or  Jewish  signi- 
fication, or  in  themselves,  considered  in  an  iso- 
lated fashion  and  alone,  can  at  all  determine  the 
question  of  the  future  life.  Their  biblical  signi- 
fication is  rather  to  be  determined  by  the  general 
scope  and  spirit  of  the  passages  in  which  they 
are  found,  and  by  the  whole  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  on  the  subject  by  all  the  proof  ad- 
duced in  the  first  chapter  of  this  book.  Remem- 
bering these  qualifications,  however,  a  study  of 
the  subject  from  the  present  stand-point  will  not 
be  without  its  results,  and  seems  necessary  to  a 
full  understanding  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case. 

The  terms  that  demand  attention  may  be 
classified  and  treated  as  follows:  I.  Those  that 
pertain  to  the  place  of  future  punishment,  a6r)$ 
—Hades  (Heb.  f>iNB>) ;  yeevva — Gehenna;  rapra- 
poioag — Tartarus  ;  </>psap,  dQvaaog,  XlfivT]  rov  irvpoc. 
2.  Those  that  pertain  to  time,  or  the  duration  of 


116  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

punishment,  aluv  (with  its  plural  forms  and 
phrases),  aiuviog,  aidtoc;.  3.  Those  that  describe 
the  condition  or  state  of  the  lost,  Odvarog, 
o/U#po£,  e^oXodpevu,  diafideipu, 
d0avt£w,  etc.  This  we  believe 
to  be  an  exhaustive  classification  of  the  more 
important  terms  used  in  connection  with  the 
subject,  and  in  this  order  we  will  briefly  consider 
them.* 

I.  Those  that  pertain  to  the  place  of  future 
punishment.  Three  of  these,  f^/Cj  y&vva,  rapra- 
puaas,  are  in  all  instances  alike  translated  in  the 
Authorized  Version  (two  of  them,  -yievva,  rapra- 
puaag,  in  the  Revised,  with  an  additional  marginal 
reading)  by  the  English  word  "  hell."  These  we 
will  consider  first  in  their  order,  and  follow  with 
a  short  account  of  the  remaining  words. 

"Aidr/g,  translated  "  hell  "  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion and  "  Hades  "  in  the  Revised  in  every  in- 


*  We  omit  reference  here  to  the  words  Kpivu,  KCtraKptvu,  Kpifia, 
Kpiaif  (translated  "  to  damn  "  and  "  damnation  "  in  the  Authorized 
Version,  but,  rightly,  "judged"  [2  Thess.  ii,  12],  "condemned" 
[Mark  xvi,  16],  "condemnation"  [Mark  xii,  40],  "judgment" 
[Matt,  xxiii,  33]  in  the  Revised),  because  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  their  signification  is  very  general,  and  they  therefore  express 
nothing  definite  either  as  to  the  duration  or  the  character  of 
future  punishment.  In  the  phrase  "judgment  of  hell"  (Greek 
Gehenna),  for  example,  the  word  that  conveys  a  definite  mean- 
ing is  "  hell,"  not  icpiaic. 


.Yf'.ir    TESTA  ME.VT    TERM  I  .\'OLOG  Y.         117 

stance,*  is  derived,  according  to  etymologists, 
from  a  privative  and  Men/,  to  see,  signifying  that 
which  is  not  seen.  It  is  used  in  the  Septuagint 
in  translating  the  Hebrew  ?iNE*  in  most  instances, 
a  word  with  which  it  is  identical  in  several  par- 
ticulars. In  the  Greek  writings  (always  in  Homer) 
it  is  used  as  the  name  of  Pluto  or  Dis,  the  god  of 
the  spirit-world.  It  was  also  used  in  these  writ- 
ings to  signify  the  spirit-world  itself.  In  later 
Greek  this  became  its  more  common  meaning.  In 
the  New  Testament  it  is  undoubtedly  identical  in 
meaning  with  the  secondary  classical  significa- 
tion, except  that  in  classic  usage  it  was  under- 
stood to  signify  the  permanent  abode  of  the 
dead,  whereas  in  the  New  Testament  it  signifies 
the  abode  of  the  dead  before  the  resurrection 
(Rev.  xx,  14).  In  two  instances  it  is  personified 
as  a  living  power  (Rev.  vi,  8  ;  xx,  14).  In  other 
instances  it  has  a  metaphorical  signification 
(Matt,  xi,  23;  Luke  x,  15).  There  can  be  no 
doubt,  moreover,  that  it  was  used  to  represent 
the  after-death  abode  of  the  righteous  and  the 
unrighteous  alike  (Luke  xvi,  23  ;  compare  Acts 
ii,  27.  31).  In  this  respect  it  was  kindred  in  its 

*  In  I  Cor.  xv,  55  (where  in  the  Authorized  Version  we  have 
"giave,"  ddijf),  tfdvarof  is  substituted  for  a'^w,  according  to  the 
best  manuscripts,  and  is  so  given  in  the  Revised  Version. 


118  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

use  to  -that  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  writers,  who 
divided  Hades  into  Tartarus  for  the  bad  and 
Elysium  for  the  good.  But  it  seems  equally 
certain  that  it  was  used  sometimes  as  equivalent 
simply  to  the  abode  of  wicked  spirits  (Matt,  xvi, 
18).  It  is  on  this  supposition,  moreover,  that 
the  metaphorical  use  of  the  word  in  Matt,  xi,  23, 
and  Luke  x,  15,  can  have  any  significance.  In 
both  this  latter  respect  and  the  one  preceding 
it  is  the  same  as  the  Hebrew  7V&&  (Gen.  xlii, 
38;  Psa.  ix,  17;  Psa.  cxxxix,  8;  Prov.  ix,  18). 
In  all  general  respects  the  usage  was  the  same 
in  the  Jewish  and  early  Christian  writings  out- 
side of  the  Scriptures.* 

As  to  the  common  impressions  that  prevailed 
concerning  this  unseen  world,  a  remark  or  two 
may  be  made.  In  both  classic  and  Jewish  writ- 
ings it  was  thought  of  as  being  in  the  earth,  or 
under  it,  according  to  the  false  astronomy  of  the 
times;  and  the  grave  was  supposed  to  be  the 
entrance  into  it.  As  Christ  did  not  come  to 


*  Later,  however,  the  fathers  located  Paradise  (the  place  of 
the  righteous  dead)  elsewhere  than  in  Hades.  "  Origen  placed  it 
in  an  apartment  of  heaven — the  third  heaven.  More  and  more 
the  feeling  spread,  especially  after  Origen's  time,  that  Hades, 
the  under-world,  was  a  gloomy,  undesirable  region,  where  there 
could  be  nothing  but  suffering,  and  where  Satan  held  sway  " 
{Discussions  in  History  and  Theology,  G.  P.  Fisher,  p.  417). 


NEW   TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY.        119 

teach  science,  he,  together  with  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  used  the  common  forms  of 
thought  and  expression  in  the  matter  as  he 
found  them.  The  Old  Testament  idea  of  this 
world  seems  to  have  been  that  of  a  shadowy  and 
somewhat  dismal  abode  even  for  the  righteous 
(Psa.  vi,  5  ;  Job  x,  21,  22).  Its  expressions  con- 
cerning it  were  vague  and  uncertain.  Unlike 
this  was  Hades  to  the  heathen  writers.  "  The 
pagan  poets  gave  the  popular  mind  definite 
pictures  of  Tartarus  and  Elysium  ;  of  Styx  and 
Acheron ;  of  happy  plains  where  dead  heroes 
held  high  discourse,  and  of  black  abysses  where 
offenders  underwent  strange  and  ingenious  tort- 
ures." The  New  Testament  idea  was  more 
definite,  and  more  cheerful  for  the  good.  It 
was  divided  into  Paradise,  or  Abraham's  bosom 
(the  Jews  also  spoke  of  it  as  the  "  Garden  of 
Eden  "  and  the  "  Tree  of  Life  " — Edersheim), 
for  the  righteous,  and  Gehenna  for  the  wicked. 
It  is  thought  by  some  writers  that  the  New 
Testament  represents  the  saints  since  the  res- 
urrection as  going  immediately  upon  death  to 
heaven.  There  certainly  seems,  in  some  in- 
stances at  least,  to  be  a  changed  attitude  and 
expression  toward  the  other  life.  Witness,  for 
example,  the  case  of  Stephen  when  stoned  (Acts 


120  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

vii,  55,  56,  59.    Compare  Phil,  i,  21,  23,  etc. ;  but 
see  also  p.  127). 

The  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where 
the  word  o&r\<;  is  given  are  as  follows:  "And 
thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be  exalted  unto 
heaven?  thou  shalt  go  down  unto  Hades  :  for  if 
the  mighty  works  had  been  done  in  Sodom 
which  were  done  in  thee,  it  would  have  remained 
until  this  day  "  (Matt,  xi,  23)  ;  "  And  I  also  say 
unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  the  gates  of 
Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it  "  (Matt,  xvi, 
18);  "And  thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be  ex- 
alted unto  heaven  ?  thou  shalt  be  brought  down 
unto  Hades  "  (Luke  x,  15);  "And  in  Hades  he 
lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torments,  and  seeth 
Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom  " 
(Luke  xvi,  23) ;  "  Because  thou  wilt  not  leave  my 
soul  in  Hades,  neither  wilt  thou  give  thy  Holy 
One  to  see  corruption."  "  He  foreseeing  this 
spake  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Christ,  that 
neither  was  he  left  in  Hades,  nor  did  his  flesh 
see  corruption  "  (Acts  ii,  27,  31);  "And  I  was 
dead,  and  behold,  I  am  alive  for  evermore,  and 
I  have  the  keys  of  death  and  of  Hades  "  (Rev. 
i,  1 8);  "And  I  saw,  and  behold,  a  pale  horse: 
and  he  that  sat  upon  him,  his  name  was  death  ; 


AViJ/'    TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY,       121 

and  Hades  followed  with  him "  (Rev.  vi,  8) ; 
"  And  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in 
it;  and  death  and  Hades  gave  up  the  dead 
which  were  in  them :  and  they  were  judged 
every  man  according  to  their  works.  And  death 
and  Hades  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  "  (Rev. 
xx,  13,  14). 

reevva.  This  word  is  the  Grecized  form  of  the 
Hebrew  D3'n  '3,  valley  of  Hinnom — or  more  fully 
nan-ja  S'3,  or  Darna  \s.  The  etymology  of  the  word 
D3'n  is  uncertain.  Some  suppose  it  is  the  name 
of  a  man.  Others  think  it  is  derived  from  a  root 
signifying  "  lamentation,"  in  reference  to  the 
cry  of  the  children  offered  in  sacrifice  to  Molech 
in  the  valley  of  its  name. 

This  valley  (also  called  Tophet,  most  probably 
from  the  root  ^w,  "to  spit  upon,"  hence  "ab- 
horred ")  was  on  the  south  and  west  of  Jerusa- 
lem. It  is  first  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  in 
Josh,  xv,  8;  xviii,  16,  in  connection  with  the 
description  of  the  boundaries  of  the  territories 
of  Judah  and  Benjamin.  In  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon the  worship  of  Molech — a  bull-shaped  image 
into  whose  burning  arms  the  Jews  learned  to 
cast  their  children— was  set  up  in  it  (i  Kings  xi, 
7),  and  Ahaz  set  the  example  for  the  people  of 
making  his  own  "  son  to  pass  through  the  fire, 


122  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

according  to  the  abominations  of  the  heathen" 
(2  Kings  xvi,  3).  These  rites  continued  to  be 
practiced  until  the  time  of  Josiah,  who  "  defiled  " 
the  place  and  overthrew  the  heathenish  worship 
(2  Kings  xxiii,  10).  On  account  of  the  horrible 
rites  there  practiced  the  Jews  afterward  made 
the  valley  the  common  place  of  sewage  for  the 
filth  of  the  city.  The  carcasses  of  animals  and 
the  bodies  of  criminals  were  also  thrown  into  it. 
A  fire  was  kept  burning  in  it  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  these  things  and  to  prevent  pesti- 
lence. These  facts  made  the  place  afterward  to 
be  looked  upon  as  a  symbol  of  the  place  of 
future  punishment.  Hence  "Gehenna"  be- 
came the  name  of  the  place  of  the  lost  in  Hades, 
and  was  so  used  by  the  Jews  in  the  time  of 
Christ. 

The  term  yeewa  is  used  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment twelve  times,  in  every  instance  but  one 
(Jas.  iii,  6)  in  the  gospels.  Twice  it  is  used  in 
the  phrase  yeevva  rov  nvpog — "  Gehenna  of  fire  " 
(Matt,  v,  22  ;  xviii,  9).  Once  we  have  vlo<;  yeewr)$ 
— "son  of  Gehenna  "  (Matt,  xxiii,  15) — and  once 
Kpiaig  TT/f  yeevv?/? — "judgment  of  Gehenna" 
(Matt,  xxiii,  33). 

The  passages  in  which  the  word  is  found  are 
as  follows:  "  But  I  say  unto  you,  that  every  one 


NEW    TESTAMENT   TERMINOLOGY.       123 

who  is  angry  with  his  brother  shall  be  in  danger 
of  the  judgment ;  and  whosoever  shall  say  to 
his  brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the 
council ;  and  whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  fool, 
shall  be  in  danger  of  the  hell  of  fire  "  (Matt,  v, 
22) ;  "  And  if  thy  right  eye  causeth  thee  to 
stumble,  pluck  it  out,  and  cast  it  from  thee :  for 
it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members 
should  perish,  and  not  thy  whole  body  be  cast 
into  hell.  And  if  thy  right  hand  causeth  thee 
to  stumble,  cut  it  off,  and  cast  it  from  thee  : 
for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy 
members  should  perish,  and  not  thy  whole 
body  go  into  hell  "  (Matt,  v,  29,  30) ;  "  And  be 
not  afraid  of  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are 
not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him 
which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in 
hell  "  (Matt,  x,  28)  ;  "  And  if  thine  eye  causeth 
thee  to  stumble,  pluck  it  out,  and  cast  it  from 
thee  :  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  with 
one  eye,  rather  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast 
into  the  hell  of  fire  "  (Matt,  xviii,  9) ;  "Woe 
unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites !  for 
ye  compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte ; 
and  when  he  is  become  so,  ye  make  him  twofold 
more  a  son  of  hell  than  yourselves  "  (Matt,  xxiii, 
15);  "Ye  serpents,  ye  offspring  of  vipers,  how 


124  FUTUKE    RETRIBUTION. 

shall  ye  escape  the  judgment  of  hell  ?  "  (Matt, 
xxlii,  33);  "And  if  thy  hand  cause  thee  to 
stumble,  cut  it  off:  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter 
into  life  maimed,  rather  than  having  thy  t\vo 
hands  to  go  into  hell,  into  the  unquenchable  fire. 
And  if  thy  foot  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off: 
it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  halt,  rather 
than  having  thy  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  hell. 
And  if  thine  eye  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cast  it 
out:  it  is  good  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God  with  one  eye,  rather  than  having 
two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell ;  where  their  worm 
dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched  "  (Mark 
ix,  43,  45,  47) ;  "  But  I  will  warn  you  whom  ye 
shall  fear:  Fear  him,  which  after  he  hath  killed 
hath  power  to  cast  into  hell ;  yea,  I  say  unto 
you,  Fear  him  "  (Luke  xii,  5) ;  "  And  the  tongue 
is  a  fire:  the  world  of  iniquity  among  our  mem- 
bers is  the  tongue,  which  defileth  the  whole 
body,  and  setteth  on  fire  the  wheel  of  nature, 
and  is  set  on  fire  by  hell  "  (Jas.  iii,  6). 

Taprapd)oag.  This  word  is  found  but  once  in 
the  Bible  (2  Pet.  ii,  4),  and  is  translated  "  hell  " 
in  both  versions.  It  is  the  aorist  participle  of 
the  verb  Toprapoo) — "  to  hurl  into  Tartarus  " — and 
is  used  as  a  noun  for  rdprapof; — Tartarus. 

signified  to  the  Greeks  in  their  older 


NEW    TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY.        125 

writings  a  place  below  Hades  as  far  as  the  latter 
was  below  heaven.  This  was  the  prison  of  the 
Titans,  and  the  place  into  which  Zeus  threw 
"  the  worst  offenders  against  his  authority."  In 
the  later  writers  it  was  used  to  signify  the  under- 
world in  general  (hence  synonomous  with 
Hades),  and,  particularly,  as  one  part  of  Hades, 
the  abode  of  wicked  spirits,  as  over  against 
Elysium,  the  place  of  the  good  (Liddell  and 
Scott).  It  was  used  chiefly  in  this  latter  signifi- 
cation. 

The  passage  in  Peter  in  which  the  word  is 
found  reads  as  follows  :  "  For  if  God  spared  not 
angels  when  they  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to 
hell,  and  committed  them  to  pits  of  darkness, 
to  be  reserved  unto  judgment :  .  .  .  the  Lord 
knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  tempta- 
tion, and  to  keep  the  unrighteous  under  punish- 
ment unto  the  day  of  judgment." 

When  it  is  remembered  that  for  the  incurably 
wicked  the  Greeks  knew  no  restoration  from 
Tartarus,  the  intent  of  the  apostle  in  using  the 
word  in  this  passage  cannot  be  doubtful. 

If  it  is  objected  that  Peter  expressly  limits  the 
state  of  things  described  in  the  passage  to  the 
time  of  "judgment,"  in  response  we  would  refer 
the  reader  to  the  fact  already  given,  that  wicked 


126  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

men  and  devils  are  to  suffer  an  aeonian  punish- 
ment after  the  judgment.  Granting,  therefore, 
that  the  passage  here  teaches  a  punishment  to 
last  only  until  the  judgment,  the  other  passages 
referred  to  settle  the  question  of  punishment 
after  that  event. 

4>peap,  dfivoaog,  "k'(iivr\  rov  irvpog.  These  words 
may  be  considered  together.  The  first  is  used 
seven  times  in  the  New  Testament,  three  times 
translated  "  well  "  (Luke  xiv,  5  [in  A.  V.  "  pit "]; 
John  iv,  n,  12),  four  times  (Rev.  ix,  i,  2),  "pit." 
In  this  latter  connection  it  is  used  twice  with 
ajQutTCTOf,  and  is  translated  in  the  Revised  Version 
"  the  pit  of  the  abyss."  In  the  four  places  in  Rev- 
elation it  seems  to  be  identical  in  signification 
with  Gehenna  and  Tartarus  in  Hades.  "Afivaoos 
— "abyss" — is  in  Rom.  x,  7,  and  Rev.  ix,  i,  2, 
used  of  the  under-world  in  general.  In  the  first 
case  reference  is  made  to  Christ's  descent  into 
Hades.  In  Rev.  ix,  i,  2,  the  "pit  "  is  in  the 
abyss.  In  other  places  it  seems  to  signify 
simply  Gehenna,  Tartarus,  or  the  "  pit."  The 
demons  of  Luke  viii,  31,  requested  that  they 
might  not  be  sent  into  the  "abyss"  (dfivaoos). 
So,  also,  Rev.  ix,  n  ;  xi,  7  ;  xvii,  8;  xx,  I,  3. 
The  phrase  /UjuvTj  rov  -rrvpog — "lake  of  fire" — is 
found  only  in  Revelation,  and  in  every  case 


NEW  TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY.        127 

signifies  the  place  of  future  punishment.  In  one 
case  the  phrase  is  "  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone  " 
— detov — (chap,  xx,  10);  in  another,  "the  lake 
that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  "  (chap. 
xxi,  8) ;  once,  "  the  lake  of  fire  that  burneth 
with  brimstone  "  (chap,  xix,  20).  Twice  the 
"  lake  of  fire  "  is  identified  with  the  "  second 
death  "  (chap,  xx,  14;  xxi,  8).  From  Rev.  xx, 
14,  "and  death  and  Hades  were  cast  into  the 
lake  of  fire,"  we  might  infer  that  "  the  lake  of 
fire "  is  meant  to  signify  the  place  of  the 
Kokaoig  aiwviog  after  the  judgment,  Hades  as  the 
place  of  the  righteous  and  unrighteous  dead 
alike  no  longer  existing,  the  "  world  "  and  the 
saved  having  been  "  perfected,"  or  consummated 
(Matt,  xxviii,  20;  Phil,  i,  6). 

2.  The  second  class  of  terms,  as  we  have 
named  them,  are  those  that  pertain  to  the  dura- 
tion of  future  punishment. 

First  among  these  is  aluv.  The  most  gener- 
ally received  etymology  connects  this  word  with 
dei  (always),  and  makes  it  identical  with  the 
Latin  cevunt,  from  which  we  get  the  English 
aye  or  ever,  deriving  Greek,  Latin,  and  English 
ultimately  from  the  Sanskrit  evas.  The  signifi- 
cations of  the  word  are  not  doubtful  either  in 
the  classics  or  the  Scriptures.  In  the  former 


128  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  word  signifies  "  an  age,"  "  human  life  time," 
"life  itself;"  also,  <ran  unbroken  age,  perpetuity 
of  time,  eternity."  With  its  classic  usage  corre- 
sponds in  some  particulars  its  use  in  the  Septua- 
gint  (in  translating  the  Hebrew  oHy)  and  in  the 
New  Testament.  In  both  of  these,  however,  it 
has  significations  peculiar  to  themselves.  We 
are  concerned  chiefly  with  the  use  of  the  word 
in  the  New  Testament.  Here  it  signifies: 

(i)  An  age.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  to  signify 
a  dispensation,  or  economy.  The  Jews  were  in 
the  habit  of  dividing  time  into  two  periods,  that 
which  preceded  the  Messiah  (njn  Dbiyn),  and  that 
which  would  be  after  his  advent  (N3n  Q?iyn). 
The  New  Testament  writers  adopted  the  same 
division  of  time,  and  in  a  number  of  instances 
referred  to  the  present  age  preceding  the 
parousia  as  6  atwv  ovrof — this  age  (Rom.  xii,  2), 
6  alu)v — the  age  (Matt,  xiii,  22],  6  evecrrcbf  aluv — 
the  present,  or  existing  age  (Gal.  i,  4),  6  vvv  aluv 
— the  now  age  (i  Tim.  vi,  17);  to  that  which 
will  succeed  the  parousia  as  atwv  /zeAAwv — the 
future  age  (Matt,  xii,  32),  6  atwv  eitelvos — that  age 
(Luke  xx,  35),  6  aiuv  b  ep%6fj,evoc — the  coming  age 
(Luke  xviii,  30).  In  some  instances  the  word 
seems  synonomous  with  "  the  time  of  life,"  or,  at 
least,  it  involves  this  idea.  Hence  Demas  is 


A'EIV    TESTAMENT   TERMINOLOGY.       1^9 

condemned  for  having  loved  "  the  now  age  " — 
ayaTTT/aaf  rov  vvv  aluva  (2  Tim.  iv,  lo)  ;  there  is 
a  wisdom  which  is  "  of  this  age " — ootyia  rov 
altivng  rovrov  (i  Cor.  ii,  6.  Compare,  also,  I  Cor. 
i,  20;  Luke  xvi,  8  ;  Eph.  ii,  2). 

(2)  "  By   metonomy  of  the   container  for  the 
contained,  ol  aluveg  denotes  tJie  worlds,  the  uni- 
verse, that  is,  the  aggregate  of  things  contained 
in  time,"  as  opposed  to  Koafiog,  or  the  world  as 
contained  in  space.     Thus  we  have :  "  Through 
whom  also    he   made   the  worlds  " — roi-g  al&vag 
(Heb.  i,  2);   "By  faith  we  understand  that  the 
worlds — rovg  aiuvag — have   been   framed  by  the 
word  of  God  "  (Heb.  xi,  3). 

(3)  Another  signification  of  the  term  is  dura- 
tion   without    limitation,   or  forever.      Thus    in 
2  Pet.  iii,  18,  we  have:  "To  him  be  the  glory 
both  now  and  forever" — elg  j^ucpav  aluvog,   liter- 
ally, "  unto  the  day  which  is  eternity."     In  John 
vi,  51,  we  have:  "  If  any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he 
shall   live    forever " — elg  rov  aluva,    etc.     Other 
forms  of  the  word  that  express   the    same  idea 
are    e^  irdvrag  roi-g  aluvag — unto    all    the    ages 
(Jude  25)  ;    «?  rovg  al^vag  ~H)v  al&vw — unto    the 
ages  of  the  ages  (Rev.  i,  6,  etc.).     When  these 
phrases  are   used    with  a   negative  particle,    as 
ov  \ir\,  or  simply  ou,   they  signify  an    unqualified 


130  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

never,  or  not  forever.  Examples  are  as  follows  : 
"  But  whosoever  drinketh  of  the  water  that 
I  shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst  'V— ov  p) 
diiprjaei  elg  rbv  atwvaQohn  iv,  14);  "  Wherefore,  if 
meat  maketh  my  brother  to  stumble,  I  will  eat 
no  flesh  for  evermore  " — ov  p)  0ayw  ttpea  elg  rov 
aiuva  (i  Cor.  viii,  13);  "And  the  bond-servant 
abideth  not  in  the  house  forever  " — ov  fievei  lv 
rq  olida  elg  rbv  aluva  (John  viii,  35). 

(4)  In  some  cases  the  word  signifies  simply  a 
very  long  time.  "  The  same  were  the  mighty 
men  which'  were  of  old" — arr'  aiuvoq  (Gen.  vi,  4. 
Compare,  also,  Luke  i,  70;  John  ix,  32  ;  Acts  iii, 
2 1  ;  xv,  1 8). 

From  the  substantive  aluv  is  derived  the  ad- 
jective alurtog.  That  this  word  is  used  to  signify 
'•  everlasting  "  would  never  have  been  questioned 
but  for  the  possible  implication  of  this  fact  in 
relation  to  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 
In  the  following  instances  it  undoubtedly  bears 
this  meaning.  "  The  eternal  God  "  (Rom.  xvi, 
26)  ;  "  For  we  know  that  if  the  earthly  house  of 
our  tabernacle  be  dissolved,  we  have  a  building 
from  God,  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal, 
in  the  heavens"  (2  Cor.  v,  i)  ;  "The  eternal 
Spirit  "  (Heb.  ix,  14)  ;  "  And  for  this  cause  he  is 
the  mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  that  a  death 


NEW    TESTAMENT   TERMINOLOGY.        131 

having  taken  place  for  the  redemption  of  the 
transgressions  that  were  under  the  first  covenant, 
they  that  have  been  called  may  receive  the 
promise  of  the  eternal  inheritance "  (Heb.  ix, 
15);  "  Therefore  I  endure  all  things  for  the  elect's 
sake,  that  they  also  may  obtain  the  salvation 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  with  eternal  glory  " 
(2  Tim.  ii,  10),  etc. 

It  is  also  used,  however,  metaphorically  or 
poetically  (Hab.  iii,  6)  to  signify  indefinite  or 
long  time.  But  we  would  suggest  that  its 
metaphorical  and  poetic  use  is  grounded  upon, 
and  derives  its  force  from,  its  absolute  significa- 
tion. An  illustration  may  be  given  in  the  use  of 
our  own  word  ''eternal."  Because  this  word 
signifies  to  us  "  everlasting  "  in  an  absolute  sense, 
therefore  its  metaphorical  use,  as  when  \ve  say 
"eternal  hills"  or  "eternal  laws,"  etc.,  has  the  force 
of  meaning  that  such  expressions  convey  to  us. 

The  same  remark  maybe  made  concerning  the 
use  of  aluviog  in  other  than  strictly  metaphorical 
significations.  Examples  are  as  follows  :  "  And 
I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee, 
the  land  of  thy  sojournings,  all  the  land  of  Canaan, 
for  an  everlasting  possession "  (Gen.  xvii,  8) ; 
"And  this  shall  be  an  everlasting  statute  unto 
you  "  (Lev.  xvi,  34).  In  these  and  other  instances 


132  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  absolute  signification  of  the  word  furnishes 
ground  for  its  secondary  and  limited  use. 

The  Septuagint  use  of  al&v  and  aluviog  is  of  in- 
terest as  illustrating  the  New  Testament  use,  the 
latter  in  many  respects  being  derived  from  the 
former.  There  they  are  used  in  translating  D?0? 
and  iy  (with  their  plural  forms,  reduplication;-., 
and  combinations),  with  which  they  have  very 
similar  meanings,  though  different  etymological 
ideas.  Some  of  the  corresponding  forms  in 
Hebrew  and  Greek  are  as  follows:  nf\y  =  aluv  • 
Dpiy?  =  elg  rov  aluva  ;  D'Cvty  D^ij?  =  al£)V£$  r&v  al&vwv ; 
*1JJ  wijnj?  —  t'wf  rov  alijvos  *:~i-"  unto  the  time  of 
eternity  and  on  ;"  D^Tiy  =aluvi oc.  The  following 
passages  are  examples  in  addition  to  those  given 
above  :  "  And  the  Lord  said,  My  Spirit  shall  not 
strive  with  man  forever "  (Gen.  vi,  3) ;  "  As  I 
live  forever  "  (Deut.  xxxii,  40)  ;  "  One  genera- 
tion goeth,  and  another  generation  cometh  ;  and 
the  earth  abideth  forever"  (Eccl.  i,  4);  "But 
Israel  shall  be  saved  by  the  Lord  with  an  ever- 
lasting salvation  :  ye  shall  not  be  ashamed  nor 
confounded  world  without  end"  (Isa.  xlv,  17). 

When  all  the  recognized  and  indisputable  uses 
of  aluv  and  aluvio<;  in  classic  and  in  Old  and 
New  Testament  writings  are  taken  into  the  ac- 
count, their  influence  in  determining  the  question 


A'EIT    TEST  AM  EXT    TERMINOLOGY.        133 

of  the  duration  of  future  punishment  is  in  them- 
selves alone  of  little  worth  ;  but  in  connection 
with  all  the  facts  given  on  the  subject,  remember- 
ing their  possible  signification  of  "  everlasting," 
they  are  of  great  importance.* 

'AiSiog.  This  word  is  found  but  twice  in  the 
New  Testament,  once  in  Rom.  i,  20,  "  For  the 
invisible  things  of  him  since  the  creation  of  the 
world  are  clearly  seen,  being  perceived  through 
the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  everlasting 
[at&o^]  power  and  divinity,"  and  once  in  Jude  6, 
"And  angels  which  kept  not  their  own  princi- 
pality, but  left  their  proper  habitation,  he  hath 
kept  in  everlasting  [at&'otf]  bonds  under  darkness 
unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day." 

Much  capital  is  made  by  some  writers  out  of 
the  fact  that  aidiog,  which,  as  they  assert,  is  a 
much  stronger  word  than  atwvtof,  is  used  but  once 
in  the  New  Testament  in  connection  with  the 
subject  of  future  punishment.  And  then,  they 
assert,  where  it  is  so  used  it  cannot  signify  eternal 
punishment ;  for  the  "  everlasting  bonds  "  in  which 
the  fallen  angels  are  kept  "  under  darkness  "  last 
04ily  "unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day." 

*  We  doubt  if  any  orthodox  writer  claims  more  for  these 
words,  and  yet  many  writers  of  the  opposite  class  expend  much 
time  and  labor  in  proving  that  the  words  do  not  always  in  the 
Scr-'ptures  signify  "eternity." 


1,14  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

Besides  what  has  already  been  two  or  three 
times  said  as  to  the  punishment  of  the  lost  after 
the  judgment,  we  may  ask  if  this  word  signifies 
so  much  more  than  aiuviog  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  these  writers  assert.  Paul,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  the  only  writer  besides  Jude  who  uses 
the  word.  The  signification  of  the  word  as  used 
by  him  is  not  uncertain ;  but  this  same  apostle 
who  speaks  of  the  "  aidian  "  power  and  divinity 
of  God  speaks  also  in  another  place  of  the 
"aeonian  [aiwwoc]  God"  (Rom.  xvi,  26).  Did  he 
mean  more  when  he  used  dldtog  in  the  one  case 
than  when  he  used  aluviog  in  the  other  ?  Can 
we  translate  "  everlasting  power  and  divinity  "  in 
the  one  case  and  "  age-long  God  "  in  the  other, 
and  believe  the  apostle  had  any  such  distinction 
in  his  thought?  Must  we  not  regard  his  use  of 
the  words  as  not  only  synonomous,  but  identical? 
Besides,  St.  Jude,  in  the  same  passage  in  which 
he  speaks  of  "aidian  bonds,"  speaks  also  of 
"  aeonian  fire  "  (xvp  aluviov').  Did  he  mean  more 
by  the  one  word  than  by  the  other  ?  or  did  he 
use  them  as  interchangeable  ? 

Whatever  the  passage  in  Jude  may  or  may 
not  signify  as  to  the  punishment  of  the  lost,  we 
are  persuaded  from  the  above  considerations  that 
the  claim  that  O.L$LO<;  would  have  been  a  better 


NEIV    TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY.        135 

word  in  general  to  express  the  orthodox  doctrine 
of  future  punishment  than  a;u>wo?  has  no  foun- 
dation in  the  facts  in  the  case.  Indeed,  this  is 
tacitly,  though  inconsistently,  granted  in  the  as- 
sertion above  referred  to,  that  didiog  in  the  pas- 
sage in  question  does  not  mean  "  everlasting." 

3.  Our  third  class  of  words  are  those  that  per- 
tain to  the  condition  or  state  of  the  lost.  These 
terms  are  those  upon  which  the  Annihilationist 
bases  his  claim.  As  to  this  doctrine  we  will 
have  more  to  say  further  on.  For  the  present 
we  are  to  deal  with  the  terms  simply  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  present  chapter.  They  are  in 
all  general  respects  identical,  and  so  may  be 
briefly  considered  together. 

The  claim  made  for  them  is  that  they  signify 
the  total  destruction,  not  the  eternal  punishment, 
of  the  lost.  This  assertion  is  based  partly  upon 
the  use  of  the  terms  in  the  Greek  writers.  Thus 
White  says,  "  No  fact  in  literature  is  capable  of 
clearer  demonstration  than  that  the  majority  of 
these  nouns  and  verbs,  denoting  destruction  of 
some  sort,  are  used  by  Plato  again  and  again  in 
the  Plicedon,  a  dialogue  on  immortality,  expressly 
for  the  purpose  of  conveying  the  idea  of  the  lit- 
eral destruction  or  extinction  of  the  soul"  (Life  in 
Christ,  p.  360).  "  They  arc  precisely  the  terms 


136  FUTURE  RETRIBUl^JON. 

generally  chosen  in  the  New  Testament  to  de- 
note the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  with  this 
difference,  that  Plato  says  the  soul  will  not  suffer 
Odvaroc;,  d-<oA«a,  oXedpog,  0popa  ;  that  it  is  not  des- 
tined to  aTroheaOai,  KarcKpOei.peGOai,  dia^deipKoOat, 
dnodvr/fjKeiv;  while  the  New  Testament  writers 
declare  that  wicked  men  shall  suffer  what  is  de- 
noted by  these  terms.  In  Plato's  dialogue  these 
words  stand  for  extinction  of  life,  for  that  idea 
only,  and  in  the  strongest  possible  contrast  to 
the  idea  of  perpetuation  of  being.  Our  argu- 
ment is  that  in  the  New  Testament  they  signify 
precisely  the  same  doom — the  final  and  absolute 
extinction  of  life  in  the  case  of  the  wicked  "  (ibid., 
p.  361).  It  is  this  latter  claim  that  we  wish  chiefly 
to  examine. 

A  word  may  be  said,  however,  as  to  the  classic 
use  of  these  terms.  It  is  not  denied  that  Plato 
used  them  in  the  sense  which  Mr.  White  claims 
for  them.  But  it  is  denied  that  this  is  their  com- 
mon classic  signification.  Dean  Plumptre  shows 
that  the  earliest  use  of  the  earliest  form  of  OLTTOA- 
Af//t  did  not  signify  extinction  of  conscious  be- 
ing, and  reminds  us  that  the  New  Testament 
writers,  in  their  use  of  the  words  in  question, 
were  not  influenced  by  Plato,  but  by  the  older 
Greek  writers  through  the  Septuagint.  He  says 


NEW    TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY.        137 


of  the  word  aTrdAAu/a  in  these  writers:  "Of  any 
approach  of  its  use  in  regard  to  men,  of  the  de- 
struction of  conscious  existence,  there  is,  so  far  as 
I  know,  not  a  single  instance."  The  colloquial 
use  of  the  word  was  the  same  (Spirits  in  Prison, 
pp.  323,  324,  327). 

That  these  words  ia  their  biblical  use  do  not 
signify  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked  (a  doctrine 
contrary  to  the  assumed  immortality  of  the  soul 
every-where  in  the  Scriptures),  but  the  utter  ruin 
and  loss  of  the  soul,  the  following  facts  will  abun- 
dantly demonstrate  : 

(l)  Qdvarog  (and  it  will  not  be  assumed  that  the 
other  words  can  assert  more  in  the  matter  than 
this  word,  or  that  they  can  prove  annihilation  if 
it  does  not)  is  used  concerning  the  soul  in  this 
life  under  sin,  in  which  case  it  clearly  cannot 
mean  annihilation  or  extinction.  Instances  are 
as  follows  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He 
that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  him  that 
sent  me,  hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into 
judgment,  but  hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life" 
(John  v,  24).  "  We  kno\v  that  we  have  passed 
out  of  death  into  life,  because  we  love  the  breth- 
ren "  (i  John  iii,  14).  Instances  in  which  the 
kindred  word  vettpog  is  used  are  as  follows  :  "  And 
you  did  he  quicken,  when  ye  were  dead  through 


138  FUTURE   RETRIBU7ION. 

your  trespasses  and  sins  "  (Eph.  ii,  i).  "  And 
you,  being  dead  through  your  trespasses  and 
the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh,  you,  I  say,  did 
he  quicken  together  with  him,  having  forgiven 
us  all  our  trespasses"  (Col.  ii,  13).  One  notable 
passage  in  which  three  kindred  words  are  found 
(davarog  being  one  of  them)  is  Rom.  vii,  9-11  : 
"And  I  was  alive  apart  from  the  law  once:  but 
when  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived,  and 
I  died  [a7ro6W/fT«-w] ;  and  the  commandment,  which 
was  unto  life,  this  I  found  to  be  unto  death  [elg 
ddvarov] :  for  sin,  finding  occasion,  through  the 
commandment  beguiled  me,  and  through  it  slew 
me  [aTTwremo]." 

The  figurative  use  of  ddvarog,  and  its  class  of 
words,  in  other  connections  need  only  be  referred 
to.  Compare  Rom.  vi,  2,  7,  8,  ii,  etc. 

(2)  'A7r6AAr;p  (and  with  this  the  other  words  go 
likewise)  is  also  used  of  a  soul  in  sin  in  life.  Ex- 
amples are  as  follows :  "  And  he  spake  unto 
them  this  parable,  saying,  What  man  of  you, 
having  a  hundred  sheep,  and  having  lost 
[dTroAeffa?]  one  of  them,  doth  not  leave  the  ninety 
and  nine  in  the  wilderness,  and  go  after  that 
which  is  lost  [TO  dTroAcoAo^],  until  he  find  it?  ... 
I  say  unto  you,  that  even  so  there  shall  be  joy 
in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  more 


.\'EU'    TESTAMENT    TERMINOLOGY.        139 

tlian  over  ninety  and  nine  righteous  persons, 
which  need  no  repentance  "  (Luke  xv,  3-7).  "Or 
what  woman  having  ten  pieces  of  silver,  if  she 
lose  [a-xoXeoq]  one  piece,  doth  not  light  a  lamp, 
and  sweep  the  house,  and  seek  diligently  until 
she  find  it?  ...  Even  so,  I  say  unto  you,  there 
is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of  God  over 
one  sinner  that  repenteth "  (Luke  xv,  8-lo). 
"  For  the  Son  of  man  came  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  was  lost  [TO  dTToAwAof]  "  (Luke  xix, 
lo)  ;  "  For  this  my  son  .  .  .  was  lost  [dTroAwAcuf], 
and  is  found  "  (Luke  xv,  24). 

The  Septuagint  use  of  the  terms  ddvaroq  and 
d7r6AAu/.w  is  the  same  as  that  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, from  which  the  latter  is  derived.  There 
they  are  used  in  translating  the  Hebrew  niE  and 
"ntf.  It  will  be  necessary  simply  to  quote  a  few 
passages  in  illustration.  "  I  have  gone  astray 
like  a  lost  sheep  [wf  Trpofiarov  aTroAwAo^]  "  (Psa. 
cxix,  176).  "And  he  shall  set  up  an  ensign  for 
the  nations,  and  shall  assemble  the  outcasts 
[rovg  d-roAo/jevot'f]  of  Israel,  and  gather  together 
the  dispersed  of  Judah  from  the  four  corners  of 
the  earth  "  (Isa.  xi,  12).  "  I  will  seek  that  which 
was  lost  [TO  drroAwAof]  "  (Ezek.  xxxiv,  16).  "As  I 
live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the 
death  [6dva-o<f\  of  the  wicked  "  (Ezek.  xxxiii,  1 1). 


"O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets,  and 
stonest  them  which  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have 
gathered  thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her 
chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not !  Behold,  jour 
house  is  left  unto  you  desolate." — Matt,  xxiii,  37,  38. 

"  How  shall  I  give  thee  up,  Ephraim  ?  how  shall  I  deliver 
thee,  Israel?  how  shall  I  make  thee  as  Admah?  how  shall  I  set 
thee  as  Zeboim  ?  mine  heart  is  turned  within  me,  my  repentings 
are  kindled  together." — Hos.  xi,  8. 

"And  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that  ye  might  have  life." — 
John  v,  40. 

"  But  to  Israel  he  saith,  All  day  long  I  have  stretched  forth 
my  hands  unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people." — Rom. 

X,   21. 

"Behold,  I  stand  at  the  door,  and  knock:  if  any  man  hear 
my  voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and  will 
sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me." — Rev.  iii,  20. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

The  Ground   of    Future  Endless   Retribution ;   or,    Fcr 
What  the  Wicked  are  Punished  Eternally. 

IN  the  foregoing  chapters  we  have  considered 
the  scriptural  grounds  of  the  doctrine  of  future 
endless  retribution  and  presented  and  answered 
the  objections  and  arguments  of  the  Universalist, 
supplementing  these  considerations  with  a  chap- 
ter on  the  New  Testament  terminology  on  the 
subject.  It  is  now  time  to  consider  the  question 
involved  in  the  title  of  the  present  chapter: 
for  what  will  the  wicked  be  punished  eternally? 
The  importance  of  this  phase  of  the  subject 
will  be  manifest  to  every  one  ;  especially  when 
it  is  remembered  how  many  false  views  have 
prevailed  at  one  time  or  another,  and  in  one 
part  of  the  Christian  Church  or  another,  and  how 
much  confusion  prevails  to-day  in  the  minds  of 
many  writers  and  teachers  on  both  sides  of  the 
question  with  regard  to  it.  It  will  be  our  aim 
in  the  present  chapter  to  gather  together  the 
facts  and  considerations  involved  in  this  inquiry, 
and  to  seek  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty  in 


142  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  answer  of  the  Scriptures.  We  propose  to 
consider  first  the  things  for  which  men  will  not 
be  punished  forever,  or  false  views  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  then,  positively,  that  for  which  they  will 
be  thus  punished,  or  the  ground  of  eternal  guilt. 

THINGS  FOR  WHICH  THE  WICKED  WILL  NOT 
BE  PUNISHED  ETERNALLY. 

In  general  terms  it  may  be  said  that  no  man 
will  be  punished  in  the  other  life  for  that  over 
which  he  had  no  control,  or  for  things  for  which 
he  was  not  responsible,  in  this  life.  We  have 
no  doctrine  upon  the  subject  which  denies  the 
position  that  ability  and  responsibility  are  com- 
mensurate ;  none  which  assigns  man  to  perdition 
for  any  other  cause  than  personal  demerit.  The 
following  doctrines  cannot,  therefore,  be  true : 

I.  That  which  assigns  men  to  hell  for  the  sin 
of  Adam.  This  doctrine  has  played  an  influen- 
tial part  in  the  theology  of  the  Church  from  the 
days  of  Augustine  to  the  present  time,  and  still 
lingers  in  creeds  that  do  not  trace  their  paternity 
through  any  direct  line  to  this  ancient  father.  A 
few  sample  quotations  embodying  the  venerable 
error  will  be  in  place.  The  first  we  take  from 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  first  and  most 
generally  received  symbol  of  the  Lutheran 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.    143 

Church.  In  Article  II,  on  "Original  Sin,"  it 
says: 

"  Also  they  ['  the  churches  with  common  con- 
sent among  us']  teach  that,  after  Adam's  fall,  all 
men  begotten  after  the  common  course  of  nature 
are  born  with  sin  ;  that  is,  without  the  fear  of 
God,  without  trust  in  him,  and  with  fleshly  appe- 
tite ;  and  that  this  disease,  or  original  fault,  is 
truly  sin,  condemning  and  bringing  eternal  death 
now  also  upon  all  that  are  not  born  again  by 
baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit  "  (Schaff 's  Creeds 
cf  Christendom,  vol.  iii,  p.  8). 

In  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  on  the  same  subject,  Article  IX,  is  the 
following: 

"  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of 
Adam  (as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk) ;  but  it  is 
the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every 
man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  off- 
spring of  Adam;  whereby  man  is  very  far  gone 
from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own 
nature  inclined  to  evil,  so  that  the  flesh  lusteth 
always  contrary  to  the  spirit ;  and  therefore  in  ev- 
ery person  born  into  this  world,  it  deserveth  God's 
wrath  and  damnation*  .  .  ."  (ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  493). 

*  Tt  should  be  remembered  that  this  last  clause  was  left  out  of  our 
"Articles  of  Religion  "  when  abridged  from  the  Thirty-Nine  cf 


144  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

Once  more,  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Article  VI,  "Of  the  Fall  of  Man,  of  Sin, 
and  of  the  Punishment  Thereof,"  is  the  following : 

"  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a 
transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of  God,  and 
contrary  thereunto,  doth,  in  its  own  nature,  bring 
guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over 
to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so 
made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries  spiritual, 
temporal,  and  eternal"  (ibid.,  p.  616). 

We  repudiate  this  doctrine  as  irrational  and 
unscriptural.  We  are  concerned  with  it  mostly, 
however,  as  unscriptural.  This  the  following  facts 
will  demonstrate : 

(i)  The  Scriptures  every-where  represent  the 
guilt  of  man  as  personal,  and  not  hereditary. 
Witness  the  following  illustrative  passages  :  "  I 
the  Lord  search  the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,  even 
to  give  every  man  according  to  his  ways,  accord- 
ing to  the  fruit  of  his  doings  "  (Jcr.  xvii,  10)  ; 
"  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die ;  "  "  The 
soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die  :  the  son  shall  not 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the 
father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son  ;  the  right- 

the  Church  of  England  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  adopted  by  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  of  1784.  As  a  Church  we  are,  therefore,  com- 
mitted against  the  error. 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     115 

eousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and 
the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him  " 
(Ezek.  xviii,  4,  20) ;  "  And  I  say  unto  you,  that 
every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak,  they  shall 
give  account  thereof  in  the  day  of  judgment " 
(Matt,  xii,  36) ;  "  Who  will  render  to  every  man 
according  to  his  works "  (Rom.  ii,  6 ;  compare 
Psa.  Ixii,  12;  Prov.  xxiv,  12;  Jer.  xxxii,  19; 
Matt,  xvi,  27;  2  Cor.  v,  10;  Rev.  ii,  23;  xx, 
12;  xxii,  12);  "So  then  each  one  of  us  shall 
give  account  of  himself  to  God  "  (Rom.  xiv, 
12).  And  nowhere  is  it  said  in  the  Scriptures 
that  a  man  shall  give  account  to  God  for  the  sin 
of  Adam,  or  of  any  one  but  himself. 

Depravity  is  inherited,  but  not  guilt ;  and  it  is 
with  reference  to  this  fact  that  all  the  passages 
that  arc  frequently  urged  to  prove  inherited 
guilt,  such  as  Eph.  ii,  3,  "  And  were  by  nature 
children  of  wrath,"  *  and  Rom.  v,  12-21,  find 
their  proper  interpretation. 

*  \Ve  include  Ep!i.  ii,  3,  among  this  class  of  passages  because 
it  is  one  of  the  strongholds  of  the  advocates  of  inherited  guilt, 
and  by  opponents  of  this  doctrine  is  said  simply  to  teach  genetic 
depravity  ,  but  we  question  if  it  has  any  direct  reference  to 
"  original  sin  "  in  any  sense.  In  the  light  of  the  context  (verses 
l-io)  the  passage  seems  to  teach  simply  that  those  to  whom  it 
refers  were  "according  to  condition  "  before  they  received  the 
gospel  subjects  of  the  divine  wrath.  In  Paul's  thought  the 
contrast  in  the  passage  is  between  the  Ephesian  Christians  as 
10 


146  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

(2)  In  the  New  Testament  representations  of 
the  judgment  the  lost  are  assigned  to  punish- 
ment solely  for  their  own  sins.  Examine  Matt. 
xxv,  41-46;  2  Pet.  ii ;  Rev.  xx,  12-15;  xxii, 
10-15.  In  all  of  these  passages  the  punishment 
of  the  wicked  is  represented  as  awarded  on  the 
ground  of  personal  guilt  in  actual  sin.  In  the 
story  of  Dives  and  Lazarus,  moreover,  no  inti- 
mation is  given  that  the  former  was  in  punish- 
ment for  the  sins  of  any  but  himself. 

2.  Again,  the  wicked  will  not  be  punished  for- 
ever on  the  ground  of  an  arbitrary  reprobation. 
This  doctrine  differs  from  the  one  preceding  in 
that  it  is  confined  to  the  Calvinistic  creeds  and 
theologies.  No  Arminian  advocates  uncondi- 
tional election  and  reprobation,  while  some  do 
hold  to  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  guilt. 

Appealing  to  the  only  rule  of  faith  on  this  as 
on  every  other  doctrine — the  Scriptures — we 
reject  this  teaching  also,  for  the  following  chief 
reasons : 

(i)  It  contradicts  the    many  passages    which 

saved,  and  as  living,  formerly,  according  to  the  "  course  of  this 
world,"  as  "  the  rest"  of  the  Gentiles.  They,  then,  were  "by 
nature  "  (<f>iiaei),  or  according  to  natural  condition  or  state  as  liv- 
ing in  sin,  "children  of  wrath  [worthy  of  the  divine  wrath  ; 
compare  the  phrase  "son  of  Gehenna"  in  Matt,  xxiii,  15]  even 
as  the  rest." 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     147 

declare  the  free  and  universal  purpose  and  pro- 
vision of  God  for  the  "sins  of  the  whole  world." 
Familiar  examples  are  as  follows :  "  Behold, 
the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world !  "  (John  i,  29)  ;  "  For  God  so  loved  the 
world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  tluit 
whosoever  believeth  on  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life"  (ibid.,  iii,  iC)  ;  "God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself" 
(2  Cor.  v,  19) ;  "  And  he  is  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the 
whole  world  "  (i  John  ii,  2). 

The  Calvinist  has  one  all-convenient  recourse 
by  which  he  can  obviate  the  plain  import  of  these 
gracious  words  of  Scripture,  namely,  by  dis- 
honoring God  in  attributing  to  him  an  insincere 
purpose,  according  to  the  teaching  which  as- 
cribes to  him  a  "  secret,"  as  over  against  his 
"  revealed,"  will,  the  one  contradicting  and  be- 
lying the  other  ;  God,  according  to  the  latter, 
declaring  to  men  his  willingness  and  desire  to 
save,  and  according  to  the  former,  withholding 
from  the  non-elect  "  effective  "  grace. 

It  is  quite  sufficient  to  reply  to  this,  that  if 
this  assumption  be  true  we  are  unable  to  know 
whether  God's  "  revealed  "  will  concerning  the 
"  elect  "  is  a  sincere  will ;  and,  for  aught  we  can 


148  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

know  to  the  contrary,  all  will  be  finally  reprobate 
through  the  working  out  of  his  "secret"  will. 
Thus  the  Calvinist  by  his  own  assumption  takes 
the  ground  of  confidence  from  beneath  his  own 
feet,  and  destroys  all  effective  assurance  of  the 
salvation  even  of  the  saints.  Thus,  like  the  un- 
lucky mechanic,  he  saws  off  the  very  limb  on 
which  he  is  sitting.* 

(2)  God  explicitly  says  that  he  has  no  pleasure 
in  the  death  of  the  wicked.  In  Ezekiel  he  asks 
and  answers  his  own  question  pertaining  to  this 

*  Moderate  New  England  Calvinism  (the  New  Haven  type) 
rejected  this  explanation  of  the  difficulty  on  the  ground  of  two 
wills,  inconsistent  and  contradictory,  and  resorted  to  the  view 
that  God  sincerely  desires  the  salvation  of  all  men,  but  that  it  is 
incompatible  with  the  highest  good  of  his  system  as  a  whole  to 
efficiently  cause  the  salvation  of  any  but  the  elect.  These  latter 
are  not  loved  more  than  others,  but  are  chosen  with  reference 
to  the  general  motive  named,  namely,  the  greatest  possible  good 
of  the  system  as  a  whole.  (Fisher,  Discussions  in  History  and 
Theology,  pp.325,  326.) 

This  doctrine  implies  that  the  best  possible  system  Cod  could 
arrange  involved  and  necessitated  the  unconditional  reprobation 
of  some  men,  beyond  their  ability  to  choose  or  receive  the  con- 
trary, to  eternal  death.  It  is  held  by  Arminians  (and  was  also 
held  by  the  New  Haven  School  of  Calvinists)  that  the  best  pos- 
sible system,  under  the  divine  wisdom  and  benevolence,  involves 
freedom  to  sin  with  all  its  consequences,  actual  and  possible  ; 
but  this  declares  simply  that  the  best  order  of  things  excludes 
a  divine  forceful  prevention  of  sin,  or  the  destruction  of  free 
moral  agency.  The  distinctive  doctrine  of  the  New  Haven  the- 
ology holds  that  it  is  necessary  for  the  best  possible  outcome  in 
the  created  system  that  God  should  leave  some  men  without 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     149 

very  subject.  "  Have  I  any  pleasure  in  the 
death  of  the  wicked  ?  saith  the  Lord  God :  and 
not  rather  that  he  should  return  from  his  way, 
and  live?"  (chap,  xviii,  23).  The  answer  is  in 
verse  32  of  this  same  chapter,  and  in  chapter 
xxxiii,  11:"  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God :  where- 
fore turn  yourselves,  and  live  ;"  "  Say  unto  them, 
As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleas- 
ure in  the  death  of  the  wicked  ;  but  that  the 

the  efficient  and  necessary  means  of  salvation,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  the  unconditional  damnation  of  some  men  is  a  neces- 
sary means  of  the  Lest  possible  system  of  things.  The  former 
doctrine  makes  the  free  agency  of  men  the  necessary  element  in 
such  a  system  ;  the  latter  makes  divine  unconditional  election 
this  necessary  element. 

But  this  doctrine,  while  better  and  profounder  than  the  older 
and  more  common  one  discussed  in  the  text,  is  also  freighted 
with  insuperable  difficulties.  It  devolves  upon  advocates  of  the 
doctrine  to  prove  that  the  so-called  necessity  is  real.  As  an  as- 
sumption it  can  only  have  weight  upon  the  truthfulness  of  the 
prior  assumption  of  an  unconditional  election  and  reprobation. 
In  other  words,  it  is  of  significance  at  all  only  on  the  assumption 
that  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  cf  election  and  its  corollary  are 
exegetically  proven.  But  this  we  do  not  allow.  Besides,  the 
doctrine  is,  equally  with  the  other,  contrary  to  the  assumed  abil- 
ity of  nil  men  to  repent  and  be  saved  in  the  Scriptures,  and  with 
the  universal  provisions  of  grace  with  this  end  in  view,  also 
given  in  the  Scriptures  and  admitted  by  the  Calvinist. 

No  form  of  Calvinism  will  ever  be  able  to  reconcile  its  doc- 
trines of  partial  election  and  grace  with  the  freeness  and  pro- 
vision of  grace  offered  to  all  men  upon  assumed  conditions  of 
ability  on  the  part  of  all  to  accept  salvation. 


150  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

v  i eked  turn  from  his  way  and  live :  turn  ye, 
turn  ye  from  your  evil  ways  ;  for  why  will  ye 
die,  O  house  of  Israel."  In  the  New  Testament 
the  divine  revelation  is  equally  explicit.  "  Who 
willeth  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  and  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  "  (i  Tim.  ii,  4). 
"The  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise, 
as  some  count  slackness;  but  is  long-suffering  to 
you-ward,  not  wishing  that  any  should  perish, 
but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance  "  (2  Pet. 
iii,  9). 

In  view  of  the  positive  divine  declarations 
of  these  passages,  how  singular  that  the  "  good 
pleasure  of  his  will  "  (Eph.  i,  5)  could  ever  have 
been  made  to  involve,  in  some  cases,  the  eternal 
and  unconditional  reprobation  of  men  to  death  ! 
Surely  it  is  time  for  a  revision  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith  ! 

Our  general  Arminian  position  makes  it  un- 
necessary to  notice  the  present  false  doctrine  at 
any  greater  length. 

3.  Nor  will  human  beings  be  assigned  to  hell 

*s  O  O 

for  a  failure  to  receive  what  was  not  within 
their  power  to  receive ;  but  which,  through  the 
neglect  or  providential  inability  of  others,  was 
not  given  to  them.  We  refer  in  this  place  to  the 
two  false  doctrines  which  have  assigned  persons 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     151 

to  perdition  for  not  having  received  baptism  over 
which  they  had  no  control,  and  for  not  having 
heard  the  Gospel.  These  theological  errors  like- 
wise demand  brief  consideration. 

Both  of  them  have  occupied  a  large  place  in 
the  teaching  of  the  creeds,  and  are  entertained 
and  taught  in  certain  large  sections  of  the  Church 
to-day.  "  Zwingli  was  the  first  to  emancipate 
the  salvation  of  children  dying  in  infancy  from 
the  supposed  indispensable  condition  of  water- 
baptism  "  (Schaffs  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  i, 
p.  378).  "  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  keep- 
ing with  her  doctrine  of  original  sin  and  guilt, 
and  the  necessity  of  water-baptism  for  salvation 
(based  upon  Mark  xvi,  16,  and  John  iii,  5),  teaches 
the  salvation  of  all  baptized,  and  the  condemna- 
tion of  all  unbaptized  children ;  assigning  the 
latter  to  the  limbus  infantum  on  the  border  of 
hell,  where  they  suffer  the  mildest  kind  of  pun- 
ishment, namely,  the  negative  penalty  of  loss 
(pocna  damni,  or  carentia  beatifica  tnsumts),  but 
not  the  positive  pain  of  feeling  (pcena  sensus).  St. 
Augustine  first  clearly  introduced  this  wholesale 
exclusion  of  all  unbaptized  infants  from  heaven" 
(ibid.,  p.  3/9).  "The  Lutheran  creed  retains  sub- 
stantially the  Catholic  view  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration, and  hence  limits  infant  salvation  to  those 


152  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

who  enjoy  this  means  of  grace;  allowing,  how- 
ever, some  exceptions  within  the  sphere  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  making  the  damnatioii  of 
unbaptized  infants  as  mild  as  the  case  will  permit. 
At  present,  however,  there  is  scarcely  a  Luth- 
eran divine  of  weight  who  would  be  willing  to  con- 
fine salvation  to  baptized  infants  "  (ibid.,  pp.  379, 
380).  The  creed  of  the  Greek  Church  is  in  keep- 
ing with  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Lutheran.* 
As  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  Dr.  Schaff 
says  :  "  Before  Zwingli  it  was  the  universal  opin- 
ion that  there  can  be  no  salvation  outside  of  the 
visible  Church  (extra  ecclesiam  nulla  salus). 
Dante,  the  poet  of  the  mediaeval  Catholicism, 
assigns  even  Homer,  Aristotle,  Virgil,  to  hell  " 
(lit  supra,  p.  382).  Zwingli  was  an  exception  in 
his  own  age.  "  Luther  was  horrified  at  the  idea 
that  even  '  the  godless  Numa '  (!)  should  be 
saved,  and  thought  that  it  falsified  the  whole 
Gospel,  without  which  there  can  be  no  salvation  " 
(ibid?).  This  doctrine  is  taught  to-day.  In  de- 

*  A  strange  coincidence  in  history  is  the  fact  that  through  the 
logical  exigency  of  two  false  doctrines  (predestinarianism  and  a 
false  view  of  baptism  as  a  necessary  and  saving  ordinance)  in- 
nocent children  have  been  assigned  to  that  hell  whose  earthly 
symbol  (Ge  Hinnom,  the  valley  of  Hinnom  on  the  south  and 
west  of  Jerusalem)  was  at  one  time  the  place  of  the  worship  of 
the  god  Molech,  whose  delight  was  in  the  cries  of  burning  chil- 
dren. 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     153 

fense  of  it  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says :  "  We  must 
not  charge  the  ignorance  and  consequent  per- 
dition of  the  heathen  upon  God.  The  guilt  rests 
on  us.  We  have  kept  to  ourselves  the  bread 
of  life,  and  allowed  the  nations  to  perish  "  (Sys* 
tematic  Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  31).  Thus  Dr.  Hodge 
charges  the  damnation  of  the  heathen  upon  the 
neglect  of  the  Church.* 

Both  doctrines  are  alike  contrary  to  the  spirit 
and  explicit  teaching  of  the  Scriptures.  As  to 
the  first,  it  may  be  urged  in  general  that  nnbap- 
tized  children  were  by  Christ  declared  to  be  ex- 
amples and  subjects  of  his  kingdom  (Matt,  xviii, 
2-5;  xix,  13-15;  Mark  ix,  36,  37;  x,  13-16; 
Luke  xviii,  15-17).  As  such  they  could  not  be 
lost.  It  would  seem  a  more  rational  inference  to 
say,  Because  they  are  Christ's  they  should  be 
baptized,  than  to  say  that  they  should  be  bap- 
tized in  order  to  be  made  Christ's.f  As  to  the 

*  The  history  of  this  latter  error  is  given  at  some  length  in 
Plumptre's  Spirits  in  Prison,  chap.  vi. 

•j-With  reference  to  the  passages  that  have  been  urged  to 
prove  the  damnation  of  children  unbaptized  (Mark  xvi,  16  ; 
John  iii,  5),  it  maybe  said  :  (i)  That  both  imply  the  responsibility 
of  those  of  whom  they  speak.  In  the  first  instance  Christ  evi- 
dently meant  that  condemnation  would  rest  upon  those  who  re- 
fused the  Gospel.  In  the  second  case  no  reference  is  made  to 
children,  and  the  inference  of  their  damnation  if  unbaptized 
from  the  passage  assumes  that  Christ  must  deal  with  children 


154  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

second  doctrine,  it  is  only  necessary  to  urge  the 
words  of  the  apostle  Peter  when  sent  to  Cornel- 
ius, "  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  re- 
specter of  persons:  but  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  him,  and  worke'ih  righteousness,  is  ac- 
ceptable to  him"  (Acts  x,  34,  35);  and  to  sug- 
gest, still  further,  that,  according  to  Paul  in  Rom. 
i  and  ii,  and  elsewhere,  even  Peter's  revelation  was 
not  the  fullest  light  to  come  on  the  subject  of  the 
heathen  in  apostolic  times.  According  to  the 
former  apostle  the  following  points  seem  to  em- 
brace the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  upon  the 
subject:  (i)  That  the  Gentile  is  condemned  by 
disobedience  to  the  light  of  nature  (this  includ- 
ing both  the  teaching  of  nature  and  the  universal 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  [Rom.  i,  20;  2,  12, 
14,  15]  ;  compare  John  i,  9) ;  (2)  That  God  does 
not  require  of  him  to  live  above  what  is  revealed 
to  him,  or  above  his  opportunities  (Acts  xvii, 
30) ;  (3)  That  even  by  this  standard,  while  con- 
in  an  economy  of  grace  as  he  does  with  adults,  an  assumption 
without  foundation  in  fact,  as  the  passages  above  given  in  the 
text  demonstrate.  Men  are  sinful  and  responsible,  children  are 
not ;  and  it  is  folly  in  any  case  to  draw  a  conclusion  with  refer- 
ence to  the  innocent  and  irresponsible  from  words  intended  for 
the  responsible  and  sinful.  (2)  It  cannot  be  proved  that  John 
iii,  5i  signifies  more  than  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  sym/w/^zeJ  (not produced)  by  baptism.  It  no  doubt 
involves  the  duty  of  ChrUtian  baptism. 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     155 

demned  for  failure,  justification  cannot  come  ; 
for  none  can  be  justified  by  keeping  the  law, 
whether  that  law  is  given  in  nature  or  in  the 
Scriptures  (Rom.  iii,  19-30)  ;  (4)  That  while  God 
requires  all  men  to  strive  to  live  up  to  the  meas- 
ure of  light  possessed,  still  occasional  failure,  or 
even  continual  conscious  deficiency,  while  to  be 
repented  of,  does  not. exclude  from  the  posses- 
sion and  privileges  of  divine  sonship.  Will- 
ful and  persistent  rejection  of  the  light  possessed 
seems  the  only  bar  to  the  divine  favor  and  ac- 
ceptance.* 

Other  false  doctrines  on  the  subject  of  eternal 
guilt  are  (i)  That  which  makes  subscription  to  a 
creed  essential  to  salvation,  and  (2)  That  which 
makes  membership  in  a  visible  church  neces- 
sary. 

Illustrations  of  the  first  error  are  as  follows : 
"  Whosoever  will  be  saved  before  all  things,  it  is 
necessary  that  he  hold  the  Catholic  faith  :  which 
faith  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and  unde- 
filed,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly" 

*  In  proof  of  this  last  point  we  refer  the  reader  to  those  pas- 
sages in  Paul's  epistles  which  seek  to  correct  sins  in  many  believ- 
ers, as,  for  example,  I  Cor.  vi,  15-20  ;  Eph.  iv,  17-32  ;  Col.  iii, 
i-io.  The  reader  is  also  referred  for  a  fuller  statement  of  this 
point  to  an  article  by  the  writer  in  the  Methodist  Review  for 
January,  1889,  pp.  79-85. 


156  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

(Symbolum  Quicunque,  or  The  Athanasian  Creed. 
See  the  whole  creed  in  Schaff,  ut  supra,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  66-70);  "I  do,  at  this  present,  freely  pro- 
fess and  truly  hold  this  true  Catholic  faith, 
without  which  no  one  can  be  saved  "  (Profes- 
sion of  the  Tridentine  Faith,  A.  D.,  1564.  See 
Schaff,  vol.  i,  pp.  96-98;  vol.  ii,  pp.  207-210). 
The  famous  bull  "  Unam  Sanctam  "  of  Bonifice 
VIII.  (1302)  declared  it  necessary  to  salvation  to 
believe  the  Roman  pontiff  supreme  in  all  secular 
(governmental)  affairs,  as  well  as  spiritual,  and 
the  Vatican  Council  of  1870  confirmed  this 
doctrine  in  its  decree  concerning  papal  abso- 
lutism and  infallibility,  and  set  its  condemning 
seal  upon  an  opposing  doctrine  in  the  following 
language  :  "  But  if  any  one — which  may  God 
avert — presume  to  contradict  this  our  definition  : 
let  him  be  anathema"  (Schaff,  vol.  ii,  p.  271). 

As  to  the  second  false  doctrine,  the  Cyprionic 
rule  "  extra  ecclesiam  nulla-  salus"  has  not  only 
been  applied  to  the  heathen,  but  to  nominal 
Christians,  and  even  to  genuine  followers  of 
Christ  outside  of  some  particular  visible  Com- 
munion. Thus  "  in  the  seventeenth  century  the 
Romanists  excluded  the  Protestants,  the  Luther- 
ans the  Calvinists,  the  Calvinists  the  Arminians, 
from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  (Schaff,  as  above, 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     157 

vol.  i,  p.  384).     The  Romish  doctrine  is  no  bet- 
ter to-day. 

With  regard  to  these  doctrines  the  following 
maybe  said:  As  to  the  first,  (i)  That  while  the 
New  Testament  makes  unbelief  in  the  Gospel  a 
condemning  sin  (Mark  xvi,  16*),  there  is  no 
warrant  for  the  extension  of  this  principle  to  the 
creeds  of  men,  except  in  so  far  as  they  embody 
and  rightly  interpret  the  Gospel  ;  and  (2)  That 
then  it  is  safer  and  less  misleading  to  place  the 
condemnation  on  the  ground  of  the  teaching  of 
the  New  Testament  than  on  the  teaching  of 
human  creeds.  Against  the  second  doctrine,  (i) 
That  it  contradicts  the  New  Testament  princi- 
ples above  announced  concerning  the  heathen 
(this  larger  relation  of  the  Gospel  to  those  out- 
side of  the  visible  Church  including  the  lesser  one 
concerning  the  Christians  in  nominally  Christian 
countries  outside  of  any  Church  :  much  more 
those  in  the  different  denominations) ;  (2)  That 
it  makes  salvation  depend  upon  an  agency 
established  to  foster  and  develop  the  Christian 
life,  not  to  create  it.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
agent  of  eternal  life  (John  iii,  3,  5,  7,  8);  (3)  That 

*  According  to  our  revisers  this  text  is  in  the  midst  of  a  doubt- 
ful passage  (Mark  xvi,  9-20) ;  but  the  truth  it  involves  is  given 
elsewhere  (John  xii,  48). 


158  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

there  have  been,  and  are  to-day,  devout  Chris- 
tians outside  of  the  visible  Church,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, the  Society  of  Friends.* 

We  teach  it  to  be  the  duty  of  all  to  belong  to 
the  visible  Church  and  receive  its  sacraments, 
because  it  is  a  divine  institution  (Matt,  xvi,  18  ; 
I  Tim.  iii,  15)  and  means  of  grace,  and  because 
without  membership  in  it  it  could  not  be 
sustained,  and  its  work  of  saving  the  world  and 
edifying  believers  properly  done.  We  teach, 
also,  that  a  positive  refusal  to  unite  with  the 
Church,  in  the  light  of  a  clear  conviction  of  this 
as  a  duty,  will  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  But  this  is  placing  the  condemnation 
of  such  persons  as  thus  refuse  on  the  ground  of 
positive  sin,  for  "  To  him  therefore  that  knoweth 
to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin  " 
(Jas.  iv,  17).  All  of  this,  however,  is  very 
different  from  making  the  salvation  of  men  de- 
pend upon  connection  with  a  particular  Church, 
or  with  any  Church  without  qualification. 

THE  GROUND  OF  ETERNAL  GUILT. 

Having  considered  these  more  prominent  and 
historic  errors,  we  now  turn  to  the  positive  side  of 

*  This  society  of  Christians  cannot  he  said  to  be  a  Church, 
because  they  ignore  the  sacraments. 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.      159 

our  subject :  for  what  will  the  wicked  be  punished 
eternally  ?  or  what  is  the  ground  of  eternal  guilt  ? 

In  our  treatment  of  this  important  topic  two 
very  distinct  questions  must  be  taken  into  the 
account :  (i)  That  for  which  eternal  death  is 
merited,  and  (2)  That  for  which  this  death  will 
be  inflicted  under  an  economy  of  grace.  This 
division  of  our  subject  will  save  us  much  confu- 
sion of  thought,  and  help  us  the  better  to  under- 
stand certain  current  errors  relating  to  it. 

i.  That  for  which  men  deserve  eternal  death. 
In  general  terms  it  may  be  said  that  sin,  or  all 
responsible  wrong-doing,  merits  eternal  death. 
Or,  to  put  the  thought  in  other  words,  all  trans- 
gression of  the  divine  law,  which  is  sin,  deserves 
the  affixed  and  necessary  penalty  of  that  law. 
In  the  light  of  this  definition  it  will  be  found 
that  all  who  have  reached  the  age  of  responsible 
action  have  justly  subjected  themselves,  through 
actual  sin,  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  deserve  his 
condemnation.* 

This  doctrine  is  the  reiterated  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  background  of  the  divine 

*  This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  children  to  the  atonement,  and  we  need  only  say  that,  not 
being  sinners  in  any  true  definition  of  sin,  their  relation  to 
Christ  must  be  wholly  peculiar,  as  is  their  relation  to  probation 
and  the  new  birth. 


160  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

mercy  and  grace  in  the  atonement.  It  is  be- 
cause we  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God,  and  deserve  his  just  and  necessary 
wrath  and  condemnation,  that  a  merciful  and 
gracious  atonement  was  needed  and  possible. 
Otherwise  Christ  would  not  have  died. 

It  is  this  fact,  moreover,  that  shows  the  depth 
of  the  divine  love  for  us  in  our  redemption.  It 
was  to  save  us  from  a  deserved  perishing  that 
God  gave  his  only  begotten  Son. 

These  facts  of  Scripture  are  so  well  known, 
and  so  freely  admitted,  that  a  fuller  statement  of 
them  is  wholly  needless;  but,  in  a  few  words, 
their  bearing  upon  the  modern  doctrine  of  a 
future  probation  must  be  considered. 

This  doctrine  teaches  that  some  men  in  this 
life,  particularly  the  heathen,  have  not  a  sufficient 
probation.  This  means  that  they  do  not  have  a 
"  fair  chance  "  of  eternal  life  here  and  now  ;  and, 
if  its  logical  implications  are  at  all  to  be  taken 
into  the  account,  that  all  men  do  not  deserve 
eternal  death  for  the  sins  of  this  present  time. 
In  order  to  be  worthy  of  death  they  must  know 
and  reject  the  revelation  of  God  in  the  life  and 
death  of  his  Son — they  must  know  and  reject  the 
historic  Christ.-  Some  carry  their  principle  so 
far  as  to  say  that  many  in  even  nominally 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     161 

Christian  lands  have  not  had  sufficient  oppor- 
tunity of  life  to  merit  eternal  punishment. 

Our  objections  to  this  doctrine  are  involved  in 
our  statement  above  of  the  ground  of  future 
eternal  guilt,  and  may  be  explicitly  given  as 
follows:  (i)  The  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  fact 
that  all  men  deserve  death,  whether  they  be 
Christian  or  heathen.  "  For  we  before  laid  to 
the  charge  both  of  Jews  'and  Greeks,  that  they 
are  all  under  sin  "  (Rom.  iii,  9).  "  For  all  have 
sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the  glory  of  God  " 
(Rom.  iii,  23).  On  this  fact  of  universal  sinful- 
ness  and  condemnation  is  built  by  Paul  the  fact 
of  universal  grace  and  atonement.  If  already 
sinful  and  condemned,  men  need  no  future  pro- 
bation through  which  to  merit  eternal  death. 
They  now  deserve  it.  (2)  The  doctrine  further 
contradicts  the  Scriptures  by  making  the  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  necessary  for  condemnation, 
whereas  Christ  came  not  to  condemn  the  world, 
but  to  save  it  (John  iii,  17).  He  found  the 
world  already  guilty  and  condemned,  and  came 
to  save  it  from  its  sin. 

If  the  doctrine  of  a  future  probation  is  to  be 
maintained,  therefore,  it  must  find  ground  else- 
where than  in  the  demands  of  the  divine  justice. 

According  to  this,  as  said,  all  deserve  death.      If 
11 


162  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

the  doctrine  is  to  be  maintained,  it  must  find 
support  in  a  revelation  of  mercy  according  to 
divine  grace.  Our  present  continued  probation 
is  such  ;  and  if  there  is  a  future  probation  it 
must  be  one  of  grace  also.  This  is  the  position 
that  some  advocates  of  the  doctrine  seem 
chiefly  to  occupy. 

That  a  gracious  second  *  probation  is  not  ex- 
plicity  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  the  advocates 
of  the  doctrine  freely  admit.  They  claim  for  it 
simply  the  ground  of  a  legitimate  inference  from 
certain  Scripture  facts  and  teachings.  These 
facts  and  inferences  may  be  briefly  considered, 
and  then  followed  by  a  presentation  of  positive 
facts  against  the  doctrine. 

(i)  Argument  from  the  "absoluteness"  or 
universality  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  is 
claimed  that  unless  Christ  be  made  known  to  all 
men  somewhere  before  probation  closes,  the 
universality  of  his  atoning  sacrifice  is  limited ; 


*  Advocates  of  this  doctrine  dislike  to  be  charged  with  teach- 
ing a  "second"  probation,  and  assert  that  they  advocate  only  a 
sufficient  probation  ;  if  not  here,  then  hereafter.  That  they  are 
justly  charged  with  teaching  a  "  second  "  probation  is  manifest 
from  the  fact  above  shown  (from  the  fact  of  the  condemnation 
of  alt),  that  all  have  a  sufficient  probation  here.  Universal  con- 
demnation involves  universal  probation,  sufficient  and  full.  If 
men  are  to  have  a  future  probation,  therefore,  it  will  be  a 
"  second  ''  probation.  The  one  terms  involves  the  other. 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS   RETRIBUTION.     ]63 

and  as  the  heathen  die  without  having  known 
Christ,  it  is  inferred  that  without  a  future  proba- 
tion they  do  not  share  the  universal  grace  of  the 
incarnation.  This  is  the  substance  of  a  doctrine 
upon  which  volumes  have  been  written. 

Our  response  to  this  teaching  is:  I.)  That 
the  assumption  is  true  only  on  the  ground  of  a 
moral  influence  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  We 
readily  grant  that  if  the  influence  of  Christ's  life 
and  teaching  is  essential  to  salvation,  then  a 
knowledge  of  the  historic  Christ  must  be  given 
to  all  men  in  probation,  otherwise  the  atone- 
ment is  not  universal  in  its  provision  for  the 
world's  sin.  But  we  do  not  admit  the  moral  in- 
fluence of  the  atonement  as  in  any  sense  a 
cardinal  or  essential  fact.  We  do  not  deny  the 
fact  of  a  moral  influence  in  the  atonement,  but 
simply  that  it  is  an  essential  part  thereof,  or  that 
it  is  a  constituent  element  of  atonement  at  all. 
2.)  That  it  contradicts  the  fact  that  some  have 
been  saved  without  the  knowledge  of  Christ. 
No  satisfactory  account  of  the  salvation  of  the 
Old  Testament  saints  has  ever  been  given  con- 
sistently with  the  assumption  that  a  knowledge 
of  the  historic  Christ  is  essential  to  a  proper  pro- 
bation. Abraham's  faith,  which  was  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness  (Rom.  iv,  3  ;  Gen.  xv,  6}, 


1 04  FUTURE  .  RE  TRIE  U  TION. 

was  not  a  faith  in  the  historic  Christ,  nor  directly 
in  Christ  at  all.  So,  also,  of  the  other  Old  Testa- 
ment characters.* 

The  absoluteness  or  universality  of  Christianity 
consists  in  the  universal  provision  in  the  atone- 
ment for  the  forgiveness  of  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world,  with  the  final  complete  regeneration  and 
sanctification  of  all  who  through  faith  (in  Christ 
for  those  who  know  him,  and  for  those  who  do 

*  It  is  now  admitted  that  salvation  is  possible  without  a 
knowledge  of  Christ,  but  not  final  condemnation.  "  It  has  not 
been  our  desire  to  show  that  no  one  could  be  saved,  in  the 
popular  acceptation  of  the  term,  without  the  knowledge  of 
God's  redemptive  love  in  Christ,  but  rather  that  those  who  ap- 
parently would  not  otherwise  be  saved,  among  whom  we  placed 
not  the  few  but  the  many,  might  have  the  advant'age  of  this 
knowledge  before  passing  under  judgment  "  (Andover  Review 
for  April,  1890,  p.  441).  This  is  extremely  inconsistent.  To 
say  that  a  knowledge  of  Christ  is  essential  to  a  proper  probation, 
and  then  to  admit  that  some  can  be  saved  without  this  knowl- 
edge, is  to  assert  that  the  final  destiny  of  some  can  be  decided 
without  an  adequate  probation — a  contradiction  of  the  funda- 
mental thesis  of  these  writers  ;  for  they  declare  the  necessity  of  a 
full  and  proper  probation  for  even  children  and  imbeciles.  They 
first  declare  that  a  knowledge  of  Christ  in  probation  is  necessary 
for  eveiy  one,  and,  after  building  upon  this  assumption  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  probation  for  the  heathen  and  certain  other 
classes,  they  then,  having  gained  all  they  desire  from  their 
doctrine  thus  established,  through  the  exigency  of  certain  clear 
cases  of  exception,  overthrow  that  which  they  before  established. 
They  thus  land  in  a  denial  of  their  own  peculiar  assumption, 
and  help  to  re-establish  and  confirm  the  orthodox  position  that  a 
knowledge  of  Christ  u  no  essential  element  of  a  full  and  proper 
probation. 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     1G5 

not,  according  to  their  opportunity  and  knowl- 
edge) seek  to  obey  the  dictates  of  the  universal 
Spirit  and  the  revelation  given  to  them,  whether 
in  the  Scriptures  or  in  nature.* 

(2)  A  gracious  future  probation  is  also  ar- 
gued on  the  ground  of  Christ's  universal  judge- 
ship.  Because  Christ  is  to  judge  all  men  it  is 
asserted  that  all  men  must  know  him  ;  that 
Christ  will  not  pronounce  the  doom  of  any  soul 
who  has  not  first  known  and  rejected  him. 
Thus  the  Andover  reviewers  say  : 

"  It  is  clear  that  Christ  is  to  be  the  judge. 
Christ  is  to  be  on  the  judgment-seat.  .  .  . 
Now  this  means  more  than  that  in  addition  to 
his  offices  of  Redeemer  and  Master  Christ  is  also 
appointed  Judge.  It  means  that  allmen  are  to 
be  judged  under  the  Gospel ;  to  be  judged  by 
their  relation  to  Christ.  .  .  .  They  are  to  come 
before  his  judgment-seat,  not  as  those  who  are 
dragged  there  forcibly  to  meet  a  judge  of  whose 
person,  character,  and  even  existence  they  know 
nothing,  but  as  those  who  are  brought  there  as 
the  necessary  result  of  the  knowledge  of  God 
which  has  been  given  them  through  him  before 

*  For  a  fuller  statement  of  this  doctrine  the  reader  is  asked  to 
consult  the  article  before  referred  to  in  the  Methodist  Review  of 
January,  1889. 


16o  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

whom  they  stand  to  be  judged.  When  we  read 
that  Christ  is  to  be  the  judge,  we  are  to  under- 
stand that  the  judgment  will  be  a  Christian 
judgment.  .  ."  (Progressive  OrtJwdoxy,  p.  72). 

In  reply  we  would  say:  I.)  We  most  gladly 
recognize  the  gracious  truth  declared  and  illus- 
trated in  the  fact  that  our  Judge  is  our  Redeemer. 
The  most  fundamental  and  characteristic  fact  in 
our  redemption  is  exhibited  in  this  twofold  re- 
lationship of  Christ  to  us.  We  are  not  to  be 
judged  by  God  out  of  Christ,  or  according  to 
justice  aside  from  mercy,  but  by  God  in  Christ, 
or  by  justice  according  to  a  gracious  redemption. 
By  the  first  we  are  all  condemned ;  by  the 
•second  we  may  all  be  saved.  But  2.)  We  see 
nothing  in  the  mere  fact  of  Christ's  judgeship  of 
all  men  to  warrant  the  inference  drawn  from  it 
aside  from  the  explicit  teaching  of  the  Script- 
ures. Christ  will  judge  all  men  in  mercy  and 
according  to  the  provisions  of  his  atoning  sac- 
rifice ;  but  to  say  that  he  will  not  judge  any  but 
those  who  have  known  him  is  an  assumption  for 
which  the  Scriptures  furnish  no  word  of  author- 
ity. 3.)  The  facts  of  the  Scriptures  are  against 
it.  We  make  the  assertion  here,  and  postpone 
its  proof  to  another  place,  further  on. 

(3)  Argument     from     the    incarnation.      It   is 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     167 

argued  that  Christ,  in  taking  upon  him  our  nat- 
ure and  becoming  God-man,  practically  demon- 
strated the  need  of  a  knowledge  of  himself  for 
the  salvation  of  men  ;  and  that  for  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  purpose  of  the  incarnation  all  men 
must  in  probation  be  brought  into  a  relation  of 
knowledge  to  God  thus  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
This  argument  is  the  burden  of  the  second 
chapter  in  Progressive  Orthodoxy,  although  there 
not  very  explicit}'  stated  as  such.  It  is  one 
phase  of  the  general  argument  from  the  absolute- 
ness or  universality  of  the  Christian  religion 
(see  chap,  ix,  p.  256),  but  looked  at  from  its 
own  special  stand-point. 

In  this  statement  of  the  argument  we  have 
placed  upon  it  the  best  construction  that  we 
believe  to  be  possible.  Our  objections  are:  I.) 
While  the  incarnation  was  an  essential  element 
of  the  work  of  Christ  in  redemption  (Phil,  ii, 
6-8;  Heb.  ii,  16-18;  iv,  15,  16),  and  fulfills  an 
important  place  in  the  evangelization  of  the 
world,  that  a  knowledge  of  it  is  essential  to  sal- 
vation is  what  remains  to  be  proved.  The  proof 
has  not  yet  been  given.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
2.)  The  fact  above  urged  in  another  connection, 
but  which  equally  applies  here,  that  some  have 
been  saved  without  this  relationship  of  knowl- 


108  FUTUKE   KKTKIHUTION. 

edge  to  the  incarnate  Christ,  is  positive  proof 
against  it. 

(4)  Another  argument  is  based  upon  the  as- 
sumption that  the  Holy  Spirit  can  find  sufficient 
material  alone  in  the  life,  death,  and  teaching  of 
our  Lord  for  his  efficacious  and  proper  work  in 
saving  the  lost.  It  is  said  in  proof  that  the 
heathen — the  great  mass  of  them — are  very 
corrupt,  and  in  this  condition  cannot  be  saved. 
The  alternate,  these  writers  assert,  is  either  that 
Christ  must  be  made  known  to  the  heathen 
somewhere  in  probation,  or  the  vast  majority  of 
them  be  forever  lost. 

In  objection,  besides  urging  the  ever-recurring 
"  exceptional  cases  "  of  regeneration  without  the 
knowledge  of  Christ,  especially  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, with  which  the  Andover  professors  find 
much  difficulty  at  every  point,  we  may  say  that 
their  cardinal  mistake  lies  in  the  assumption 
that  regeneration  and  morality  must  always  coin- 
cide, or  that  they  are  inseparable  in  their  lower, 
as  well  as  higher,  stages  of  development.  That 
they  are  not  may  be  proved,  not  only  from  the 
imperfect  cases  of  morality  in  the  Old  Testament 
(for  example,  the  cases  of  Abraham  and  Jacob), 
but  from  the  same  imperfection  in  many  Chris- 
tians of  New  Testament  times,  and  even  in  our- 


GROUND    OF  EA'DLKSS  RETRIBUTION. 


169 


selves.  A  thorough  study  of  the  subject  will  re- 
veal that,  while  regeneration  depends  upon  the 
inner  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  morality  de- 
pends largely  upon  knowledge  ;  and  that  moral- 
ity may  exist  without  corresponding  regenera- 
tion, and  regeneration  also  in  many  cases  with- 
out its  corresponding  and  proper  morality.  Our 
inference  from  these  facts  is  that  many  of  the 
devout,  though  superstitious  and  even  immoral, 
heathen  may  be,  and  most  likely  are,  regenerate, 
and  only  need  more  perfect  knowledge  for  their 
moral  development  and  sanctification.  For  a 
further  statement  of  this  point  we  must  refer 
the  reader  once  more  to  our  article  in  the 
Methodist  Review  for  January,  1889. 

(5)  It  is  argued,  further,  that  the  condemning 
sin  under  the  Gospel  is  unbelief,  and  that  the 
heathen  cannot  be  guilty  of  this  sin  without  a 
knowledge  of  Christ.  The  inference  is  easy. 

To  this  it  may  be  said  :  I.)  That  faith  in  Christ 
is  the  only  way  of  salvation  according  to  the 
Scriptures  (Rom.  iii,  22,  25,  26,  30;  v,  i;  xi,  20, 
etc.),  and  yet  Cornelius  was  accepted  of  God  be- 
fore he  had  heard  of  Christ  (Acts  x,  34,  35). 
2.)  The  passages  that  speak  of  unbelief  in  Christ 
as  the  condemning  sin  evidently  refer  to  cases 
where  Christ  is  known.  The  preacJiing  of  the 


170  FUTURE   XRTRIBUTION. 

Gospel  precedes  the  condemning  unbelief  of  the 
Gospel  (Mark  xvi,  15,  16). 

(6)  A  future  probation  is  also  inferred  from  so 
incidental  a  fact  as  the  raising  to  life  of  the  dead 
(Mark  v,  42;  Luke  vii,  11-17;  John  xi),  and 
from  Paul's  supposed  prayer  for  Onesiphorus, 
after  the  latter's  decease  (2  Tim.  i,  16-18  ; 
iv,  19). 

As  to  the  first  case,  Dorner  says :  "  A  proof 
that,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  the  time 
of  grace  does  not  expire  with  death  by  a  uni- 
versal law,  is  found  in  Christ's  raisings  of  the 
dead  ;  for  example,  the  youth  at  Nain  received 
through  resurrection  from  the  dead  a  prolonga- 
tion of  the  time  of  grace,  through  which  Christ's 
love  first  became  known  to  him  "  (System  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  iv,  p.  409). 

It  may  be  said,  however,  that  there  is  no  rea- 
son for  supposing  that  this  young  man  was  not 
saved  at  death  (Lazarus  and  the  daughter  of 
Jairus  certainly  were),  and  if  so  his  return  to 
earth  would  not  make  any  change  in  the  out- 
come of  his  life.  His  probation,  therefore,  was 
practically  and  really  closed  at  his  first  decease. 
Besides,  the  Andover  Future  Probationists  confess 
that  the  argument  based  upon  these  facts  is  ex- 
tremely uncertain.  They  say:  *' Inferences  from 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     171 

the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  and  of  the  widow's 
son,  and  from  their  subsequent  opportunities, 
have  always  appeared  to  us  very  shadowy" 
(Progressive  Orthodoxy,  p.  101). 

As  to  the  case  of  Onesiphorus,  I.)  it  is  not  be- 
yond doubt  that  he  was  dead ;  2.)  the  so  called 
prayer  of  Paul  in  his  behalf  seems  no  more  than 
an  expression  of  good-will  toward  him.  It  cer- 
tainly was  not  a  formal  and  direct  prayer.  But 
3.)  if  we  must  suppose  he  was  dead,  and  if  we 
regard  Paul's  parenthetical  expression,  "The 
Lord  grant  unto  him  to  find  mercy  of  the  Lord 
in  that  day,"  a  true  prayer,  such  as  would  author- 
ize us  also  to  pray  for  the  dead,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  Onesiphorus  was  a  Christian,  and 
that  no  further  inference  could  be  drawn  from 
the  fact  than  that  prayers  might  be  offered  for 
the  righteous  dead.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

(7)  Other  passages  which  are  said  to  furnish 
ground  for  this  doctrine  are  as  follows  :  "  Then 
began  he  to  upbraid  the  cities  wherein  most  of 
his  mighty  works  were  done,  because  they  re- 
pented not.  Woe  unto  thee,  Chorazin !  woe 
unto  thee,  Bethsaida !  for  if  th°  mighty  works 
had  been  done  in  Tyre  and  Sidon  which  were 
done  in  you,  they  would  have  repented  long  ago 


172  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

in  sackcloth  and  ashes.  Howbeit  I  say  unto 
you,  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and 
Sidon  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  you.  And 
thou,  Capernaum,  shalt  thou  be  exalted  unto 
heaven  ?  thou  shalt  go  down  unto  Hades:  for  if 
the  mighty  works  had  been  done  in  Sodom  which 
were  done  in  thee,  it  would  have  remained 
until  this  day.  Howbeit  I  say  unto  you,  that  it 
shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom 
in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  thee  "  (Matt,  xi, 
20-24) ;  "  And  whosoever  shall  speak  a  word 
against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him ; 
but  whosoever  shall  speak  against  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in 
this  world,  nor  in  that  which  is  to  come  "  (Matt. 
xii,  32)  ;  "  Because  Christ  also  suffered  for  sins 
once,  the  righteous  for  the  unrighteous,  that  he 
might  bring  us  to  God  ;  being  put  to  death  in 
the  flesh,  but  quickened  in  the  spirit  ;  in  which 
also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison,  which  aforetime  were  disobedient,  when 
the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of 
Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein 
few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  through 
water  "  (i  Pet.  iii,  18-20);  "  For  unto  this  end 
was  the  gospel  preached  even  to  the  dead,  that 
they  might  be  judged  according  to  men  in  the 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     ]  73 

flesh,  but  live  according  to  God  in  the  spirit  "  (i 
Pet.  iv,  6*).f 

As  to  the  first  passage,  it  is  said  that  if  the 
ancient  cities  there  referred  to,  "  had  they  seen 
what  the  Jews  saw,  would  have  repented  in  sack- 
cloth and  ashes,  they  would  have  been  saved, 
which  therefore  implies  that  if  the  time  of  grace 
expired  for  them  with  death  they  would  be 
damned  for  not  seeing  and  knowing  Christ, 
which  was  not  their  fault  "  (Dorner,  System  of 
Cliristian  Doctrine,  vol.  iv,  p.  410).  As  to  the 
second  passage,  it  is  said  :  "  When,  further, 
Christ  says  of  a  sin,  that  it  is  forgiven  neither  in 
this  nor  in  the  next  life,  whereas  other  sins  are 
forgiven  in  this  world  without  limitation,  this 
contains  a  testimony  that  other  sins,  save  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  be  forgiven  in  the 
next  world  "  (ibid.}.  The  two  passages  in  First 
Peter  are  the  strongholds  of  this  doctrine,  and 

*  Compare  Acts  ii,  27,  31.  Dorner  thinks  that  Eph.  iv,  8-10, 
has  no  reference  to  Christ's  Maclean  descent  (System  of 
Christian  Doctrine,  vol.  iv,  p.  128). 

f  \Ve  omit  reference  here  to  such  passages  as  I  Tim.  ii,  4-6  ; 
Luke  xix,  10 ;  I  John  ii,  2,  given  by  Dorner  in  favor  of  this 
doctrine,  for  the  manifest  reason  that  "to  quote  such  passages 
to  prove  the  broader  view  seems  like  trifling  with  the  divine 
testimony."  They  are  not  used  by  the  Andover  professors. 
Besides,  we  have  already  sufficiently  considered  them  in  con- 
nection with  the  doctrine  of  Universalism  in  the  second  chapter. 


174  FUTURE   RETKIBUT1ON. 

it  is  claimed  that  in  them  is  furnished  a  compar- 
atively direct  testimony  concerning  it. 

Without  attempting  to  enter  into  a  full  discus- 
sion of  these  much  disputed  passages  of  Script- 
ure, it  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  one  all 
conclusive  fact  against  the  doctrine  of  a  future 
probation  being  inferred  from  them  is  that  what- 
ever the  passages  may  signify  as  to  a  possible 
hope  for  some  after  this  life,  they  cannot  signify 
a  future  probation  ;  for  the  representation  in  each 
case  is  entirely  on  the  ground  of  things  done  in 
this  life.  It  will  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and 
Sidon  and  Sodom  in  the  judgment  than  for 
Chorazin,  Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum  ;  but  in  all 
cases  reference  is  undoubtedly  intended  to  the 
earthly  sins  of  these  cities.  So,  also,  if  we  are 
to  suppose  that  Matt,  xii,  32,  signifies  a  possible 
forgiveness  in  the  other  life  for  all  sins  but  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  still  it  is  the  forgive- 
ness of  sins  committed  in  this  life.  No  intima- 
tion is  given  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  committed 
after  death.*  Likewise,  in  the  case  of  the  ante- 


*  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  this  passage,  as  suggested 
in  another  place,  signifies  more  than  what  has  been  called  an 
"  emphasized  negative."  Dr.  Love  also  suggests  the  following: 
"  Some  Jews,  perhaps  not  many,  previous  to  and  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  believed  that  some  of  their  people,  suddenly  cut  off  by 
death,  though  righteous,  did  not  have  passed  upon  them  the  full 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     175 

diluvians,  reference  is  made  only  to  their  earthly 
"  disobedience  "  (i  Pet.  iii,  20). 

Future  Probationists  unwittingly  overlook  the 
fact  that  their  doctrine  involves  the  idea  that  in 
the  other  life  sins  may  be  both  committed  and 
forgiven.  This  is  implicit  in  the  very  idea  of  fut- 
ure probation.  Before  the  passages  above  given, 
therefore,  can  be  urged  as  favoring  this  doctrine, 
they  must  be  shown  to  have  reference  to  sins 
committed  in  that  life,  and  not  merely  to  the 
possible  forgiveness  there  of  sins  committed 
here.  That  they  have  no  such  reference  we  have 
seen. 

In  concluding  this  brief  survey  of  the  doctrine 
of  a  future  probation,  ue  would  urge  against  it, 
positively,  that  not  only  do  the  Scriptures  repre- 
sent the  outcome  in  the  other  life  as  wholly 


act  of  forgiveness  until  they  reached  the  other  world.  Some  of 
them  believed  in p raver  for  such  departed  ones,  as  will  hereafter 
be  shown.  On  similar  grounds,  baptism  fur  the  dead  was 
practiced  by  a  few  among  the  early  nominal  Christians,  though 
generally  discountenanced.  A  living  Christian  was  baptized  for 
an  unbaptized  duni  Christian  (i  Cor.  xv,  29).  By  a  few  it  was 
thought  that  without  receiving  such  baptism  the  departed  un- 
baptized could  not  be  received  into  bliss.  Knowing  this  belief 
among  some  of  his  hearers  concerning  the  forgiveness  of  the 
dead  who  had  suddenly  been  cut  off,  Jesus,  without  at  all  lend- 
ing his  sanction  to  that  view,  may  have  added  the  phrase,  '  nor 
in  that  which  is  to  come,"  thus  cutting  off  a  groundless  hope  " 
denture  Probation  EjUUMIHttl,  \i.  259^. 


176  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

dependent  upon  this  life,  without  any  intimation 
that  acts  there  will  be  taken  into  the  account  in 
deciding  moral  and  spiritual  destiny  (Matt,  x, 
32,  33;  Rom.  ii,  6-10;  2  Cor.  v,  10  ;  Gal.vi,  7,  8; 
Col.  iii,  24, 25  ;  Rev.  xxii,  12,  etc.),  but  in  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  judgment  all  punishment  is  for 
sins  in  this  life  (Matt,  xxv,  41-46;  Rev.  xx,  12-15). 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  probation  necessarily  assumes  that  some 
sins  for  which  punishment  will  be  awarded  in 
the  judgment  will  have  been  committed  in  the 
intermediate  state,  unless  it  be  affirmed  that  all 
will  in  that  state  decide  for  Christ ;  and  even 
then  it  would  have  to  be  said  that  the  rewards 
of  the  righteous  are  also,  according  to  these  rep- 
resentations, for  deeds  in  this  life  (Matt,  xxv, 
34-40,  etc.).  Now,  with  punishment  and  reward 
in  the  judgment  solely  for  acts  of  this  life,  ac- 
cording to  New  Testament  representations  of  the 
judgment,  how  maintain  an  after-death  probation 
in  which  men  may  so  act  as  to  be  saved  or  finally 
lost  for  the  deeds  of  that  state?  On  the  ground 
of  these  facts  the  doctrine  of  an  after-death  pro- 
bation will  have  to  be  surrendered,  whatever 
other  gracious  truth  the  passages,  or  some  of 
them,  urged  in  its  favor  may  teach  us.  (See 
chapter  v.) 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     177 

2.  That  for  which  eternal  death  will  be  in- 
flicted under  the  Gospel.  We  now  come  to  that 
part  of  our  present  topic  which  most  concerns  us. 
We  have  seen  that  for  which  men  will  not  be 
punished  forever,  and  that  for  which  eternal 
death  is  merited  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
we  now  inquire  as  to  that  for  which  this  deserved 
death  \vill  be  inflicted  under  the  Gospel,  or  under 
an  economy  of  mercy  and  grace. 

Our  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  implicit  in  what 
has  already  been  said.  We  have  seen  that  all 
deserve  death  for  responsible  sin,  or  for  a  willful 
violation  of  the  divine  commandments,  and  have 
intimated  that  this  was  the  reason  and  ground 
of  the  divine  mercy  and  forgiveness  in  Christ. 
We  are  now  prepared  to  appreciate  the  teaching 
of  the  Scriptures  when  they  assert  that  there  is  no 
other  way  of  salvation  than  that  offered  in  Christ. 
"  And  in  none  other  is  their  salvation  :  for  neither 
is  there  any  other  name  under  heaven,  that  is 
given  among  men,  wherein  we  must  be  saved  " 
(Acts  iv,  12).  From  all  this  the  inference  is 
easy  that  eternal  death  will  be  inflicted  only  in 
the  case  of  him  who  rejects  the  divine  way  of 
forgiveness.  For  him  who  "  hath  trodden  under 
foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood 
of  the  covenant  ...  an  unholy  thing,  and  hath 


178  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace"  "there 
remaineth  no  more  a  sacrifice  for  sins,  but  a  cer- 
tain fearful  expectation  of  judgment,  and  a  fierce- 
ness of  fire  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries  " 
(Heb.  x,  26-31).  There  is  no  atonement  for  the 
rejection  of  Christ,  and  it  is  this  act,  therefore, 
that  leaves  the  soul  exposed  to  all  the  deserved 
wrath  of  a  violated  divine  law,  and  which  is  con- 
sequently, under  the  Gospel,  that  which  damns 
forever.  We  deserved  death  before  Christ  came. 
From  this  he  came  to  deliver  us.  If  we  refuse 
the  deliverance  offered  in  him,  we  remain  lost 
beyond  the  power  of  divine  grace  to  save.  Our 
hell  is  made  by  rejecting  the  only  way  of  life,  and 
is  made  forever. 

That  this  is  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  none 
who  have  accepted  our  doctrine  thus  far  will  be 
disposed  to  question.  Other  illustrative  pas- 
sages in  addition  to  those  given  above  are  as  fol- 
lows :  "  And  she  shall  bring  forth  a  son  ;  and 
thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus  ;  for  it  is  he  that 
shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins  "  (Matt,  i, 
2i);  "To  him  bear  all  the  prophets  witness,  that 
through  his  name  every  one  that  believeth  on 
him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins"  (Acts  x,  43) ; 
"  For  all  have  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the  glory 
of  God  ;  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS   KETRIBUT1OX.     179 

the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  :  whom 
God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  through  faith, 
by  his  blood,  to  show  his  righteousness,  because 
of  the  passing  over  of  the  sins  done  aforetime, 
in  the  forbearance  of  God  ;  for  the  showing,  I 
say,  of  his  righteousness  at  this  present  season: 
that  he  might  himself  be  just,  and  the  justifier 
of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus  "  (Rom.  iii,  23-26) ; 
"  But  God  commendeth  his  love  toward  us,  in 
that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for 
us.  Much  more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his 
blood,  shall  we  be  saved  from  the  wrath  of  God 
through  him  "  (Rom.  v,  8,9) ;  "  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  dis- 
believeth  shall  be  condemned  "  (Mark  xvi,  16) ; 
"  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  on  me  may  not  abide  in  the  dark- 
ness. .  .  .  He  that  rejecteth  me,  and  receiveth 
not  my  sayings,  hath  one  that  judgeth  him  :  the 
word  that  I  spake,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in 
the  last  day  "  (John  xii,  46,  48) :  "  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  He  that  believeth  hath  eternal 
life"  (John  vi,  47);  "He  that  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal  life  "  (John 
vi,  54),  etc.* 

*  It  will  be  noted  that  "  rejecting  "  Christ  (John  xii,  48)  is  the 
same   .is  unbelief  (//W.,  verse   46).      We   reject   Christ   through 


180  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

While  both  by  the  logic  of  our  general  premises 
concerning  sin  and  redemption,  and  by  the  plain 
and  specific  teaching  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
we  are  led  to  this  conclusion — that  the  rejection 
of  Christ  is  the  only  damning  sin  under  the  Gos- 
pel— we  are  yet  called  upon  to  notice,  according 
to  the  same  Scriptures,  the  different  possible 
forms  of  this  all  important  sin. 

(i)  The  direct  sin  of  rejecting  Christ.  This  is 
possible  only  where  Christ  is  known,  and  it  as- 
sumes the  form  of  actual  or  practical  unbelief. 
The  Scriptures  always  assume  that  this  unbelief 
is  occasioned  by  a  willful  rejection  of  the  light 
given.  "  If  any  man  willeth  to  do  his  will,  he 
shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of  God, 
or  whether  I  speak  from  myself"  (John  vii,  17). 
"  I  said  therefore  unto  you,  that  ye  shall  die  in 
your  sins :  for  except  ye  believe  that  I  am  he,  ye 
shall  die  in  your  sins  "  (John  viii,  24).  "  He 
that  believeth  on  him  is  not  judged  :  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because 
he  hath  not  believed  on  the  name  of  the  only 

unbelief.  Also,  "receiving"  Christ  and  "  believing  on  him" 
and  "  eating  and  drinking  his  flesh  and  blood  "  are  but  different 
New  Testament  ways  of  saying  the  same  thing.  We  do  not 
eat  Christ  in  the  eucharist,  as  the  Romanists  say,  but  by  faith 
we  receive  him  spiritually.  The  forty-seventh  and  fifty-fourth 
verses  of  John  vi  express  the  same  truth. 


GAOL'.\'D    OF  JiXDLfrSS   RETRIKL'TIOX.     181 

begotten  Son  of  God.  And  this  is  the  judgment, 
that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved 
the  darkness  rather  than  the  light;  for  their 
works  were  evil  "  (John  iii,  iS,  19).  The  belief 
in  Christ  that  saves,  on  the  other  hand,  involves 
a  belief  in  him  as  divine  (i  John  v,  9,  10,  ct  pas- 
sim\  Unitarianism  has  a  fearful  sin  to  answer 
for  according  to  the  New  Testament. 

This  rejection  of  Christ  through  unbelief  that 
damns  may  be  either  his  rejection  as  he  is  pre- 
sented to  men  (Mark  xvi,  16),  or  a  final  falling 
away  from  a  faith  that  once  saved  (Heb.  vi,  4-8; 
x,  26-31*).  In  both  cases  the  sin  may,  in  the 
outcome,  amount  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

(2)  The  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  sin 
is  presented  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  separate 
sin  from  the  mere  matter  of  unbelief  (Matt,  xii, 


*  These  passages  of  Scripture  must  not  be  thought,  however, 
to  teach  that  the  simple  act  of  falling  away  from  Christ  is  un- 
pardonable, or  that  once  to  have  known  Christ  and  to  have  re- 
jected him  admits  of  no  return,  but  must  be  read  in  the  light 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  The  writer  is  speaking  to  the 
Tews  who  had  accepted  Christ  and  who  were  in  danger  of  apos- 
tasy. He  easily  foresaw  that  if  they  should  give  up  their  faith 
in  our  Lord  it  would  be  impossible  to  renew  them  unto  repent- 
ance. The  circumstances  of  the  case  would  make  their  sin  pe- 
culiarly grievous,  and  would  involve  a  total  denial  of  Jesus  as 
Lord  (a  thing  that  is  not  done  in  every  case  of  backsliding),  and 
would  consequently  foreclose  all  return  to  sa!vat;on  nivlli'V. 


182  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

22-32;  Mark  iii,  22-30;  Luke  xii,  10;  I  John  v, 
16),  and  as  such  demands  separate  consideration. 
According  to  the  account  in  Matthew  and 
Mark,  Christ  had  just  healed  a  man  that  was 
possessed  with  a  devil,  and  had  restored  his  sight 
and  speech.  The  people  were  amazed  at  this 
wonderful  demonstration  of  supernatural  power, 
and  exclaimed  in  acknowledging  faith  :  "  Is  not 
this  the  son  of  David  ?  " — the  expected  Messiah. 
But  when  the  Jewish  leaders — the  Pharisees  and 
scribes — heard  of  the  event,  and  how  the  people 
were  being  led  by  it  to  acknowledge  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  in  order  to  rebut  this  divine  testimony  to 
Jesus  and  call  the  people  back  from  their  ac- 
knowledgment of  him,  they  declared  that  Jesus 
in  casting  out  devils — a  fact  they  did  not  deny — 
did  so  by  the  power  of  Satan.  It  was  equivalent 
to  saying  that  Christ  was  in  league  with  Satan, 
and  was  in  reality  attributing  to  the  devil  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  sin  must  have 
been  a  deliberate  one  on  the  part  of  these  Jewish 
leaders,  and  must  have  been  committed  in  the 
clear  conviction  that  their  attribution  of  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  to  the  evil  one  was  a  lie 
against  the  Holy  Ghost.  Their  motive  was  to 
retain  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  themselves 
and  to  withhold  them  from  reposing  it  in  Christ  ; 


GROU.VD   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     183 

or,  rather,  they  would  dissuade  the  people  from 
believing  in  Christ  in  order  that  they  might  re- 
tain their  thievish  and  selfish  hold  upon  them 
(John  x,  8,  10,  12,  13).  This  deliberate  sin  Jesus 
said  was  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
that  for  it  there  was  no  forgiveness.  So  willful  a 
rejection  of  the  light  given  them  closed  the  door 
of  pardon  upon  these  men.* 

There  is  a  strong  theological  tendency  which 
seeks  to  resolve  the  damning  sin  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament into  this  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  as  above  said,  that  the 
final  outcome  of  rejecting  Christ  amounts  to  this 
sin,  but  we  think  it  truer  to  the  New  Testament 
teaching  to  represent  the  sin  that  damns  as  defin- 
itive unbelief,  and  to  represent  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  Scriptures  do,  as  one  form 
or  manifestation,  perhaps  the  culminating  form, 
of  this  sin.  Certain  it  is,  as  above  seen,  that 
the  sin  that  damns  is  unbelief,  or  the  final  re- 
jection of  Christ. 


*  We  do  not  see  how  this  conclusion  can  be  avoided  when  it  is 
remembered  that  Mark  says  that  Jesus  spoke  of  this  sin  "6e~ 
cause"  the  Jews  said,  "He  hath  an  unclean  spirit"  (iii,  30). 
Besides,  the  impression  we  get  from  the  whole  narrative  is  not 
that  Jesus  was  warning  these  men  of  a  sin  they  were  in  danger 
of  committing  (Corner  and  others),  but  that  he  was  speaking  of 
a  sin  they  had  already  committed. 


184  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

But  however  we  may  regard  these  two  sins  as 
related  to  each  other,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
either,  or  both,  presupposes  a  persistent  course 
in  sinful  development.  No  man  by  a  misstep 
can  fall  into  the  guilt  that  damns  forever  under 
the  Gospel.  It  must  in  every  case  be  a  deliberate 
act,  or,  better  still,  the  culmination  of  many  such 
acts.  In  this  we  entirely  coincide  with  Mu'ller 
when  he  says  :  "  Unthinking  recklessness,  as  such, 
is  perfectly  secure  from  the  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol.  ii,  p.  421), 
and  as  well,  we  may  add,  against  definitive  un- 
belief; positing,  however,  that  this  sin  persisted 
in,  as  v/ell  as  every  other  sin,  will  no  doubt  ulti- 
mately lead  to  the  sin  of  final  unbelief;  for  sin, 
however  much  it  is  begun  and  continued  in  un- 
thinking recklessness,  or  in  any  other  spirit,  be- 
comes more  and  more,  as  time  goes  on  and  it  con- 
tinues, a  matter  of  deliberate  choice,  with  its  corre- 
sponding rejection  of  the  good.  Sin  is  unsafe  in 
any  case  ;  purposely  chosen  and  persisted  in  until 
the  close  of  life,  it  becomes  final  in  the  rejection  of 
Christ,  and  forever  damns.  The  best  and  only  safe 
time  to  cease  sinning  and  turn  to  the  Lord  is  now. 

(3)  The  sin  for  which  condemnation  is  pro- 
nounced in  the  judgment  according  to  Matt,  xxv, 
41—46.  The  sin  for  which  final  condemnation  is 


GROUND   OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     185 

pronounced  according  to  the  representation  in 
this  passage  is  unmcrci fulness,  as  that  for  which 
the  reward  of  the  righteous  is  pronounced  in  the 
preceding  verses  is  mercifulness,  or  acts  of  be- 
nevolence. "  Depart  from  me.  ye  cursed,  into 
the  eternal  fire  which  is  prepared  for  the  devil 
and  his  angels:  for  I  was  an  hungered,  and  ye 
gave  me  no  meat :  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me 
no  drink  :  I  was  a  stranger,  and  ye  took  me  not 
in  ;  naked,  and  ye  clothed  me  not  ;  sick,  and  in 
prison,  and  ye  visited  me  not." 

At  first  sight  this  seems  wholly  peculiar,  and 
not  what  might  have  been  expected  from  what  has 
been  above  said.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  ex- 
amination will  reveal,  not  only  that  it  is  in  perfect 
keeping  with  what  has  been  said,  but  that  it  is 
a  demonstration  and  illustration  of  it.  The  faith 
that  saves  is  not  a  fruitless  faith  (Jas.  ii,  14-26); 
nor  is  the  unbelief  that  damns.  Both  have  their 
corresponding  fruits,  and  it  is  these  fruits,  or  some 
of  them,  that  are  represented  by  our  Lord  as  that 
for  which  condemnation  or  approval  is  respect- 
ively pronounced  in  the  last  day.*  This  is  in 

*  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  one  of  the  fruits  of  a  "  dead  "  faith, 
which  is  the  same  as  unbelief,  is,  according  to  James,  the  very 
sin  for  which  condemnation  is  pronounced  in  the  judgment  as 
given  in  Matthew.  "But  ye  have  dishonored  the  poor  man  " 
(chap,  ii,  6.  See  the  whole  chapter). 


186  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

keeping,  moreover,  with  the  representations  of 
the  judgment  in  other  places,  as,  for  example,  in 
the  parables  of  the  Ten  Virgins  and  the  Talents 
in  the  foregoing  part  of  this  same  chapter,  and  in 
the  representations  of  the  judgment  in  the  Book 
of  Revelation.  In  this  latter  place  it  is  said  that 
"  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and  abominable, 
and  murderers,  and  fornicators,  and  sorcerers, 
and  idolaters,  and  all  liars,  their  part  shall  be  in 
the  lake  that  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  ; 
which  is  the  second  death  "  (chap,  xxi,  8).  These, 
also,  are  some  of  the  fruits  of  unbelief,  and  as 
such  damn  forever.  Christ  came  to  deliver  us 
both  from  condemnation  already  merited,  and 
also  from  the  power  of  sin  (Rom.  vi,  1-8,  etc.). 
Faith  is  the  condition  of  deliverance  from  both. 
Unbelief  leaves  the  soul  subject  to  original  con- 
demnation, and  a  prey  to  the  forces  and  powers 
of  evil,  and  in  the  outcome  is  death.  Conse- 
quently, by  metonomy  of  the  effect  for  the  cause, 
the  fruits  of  final  unbelief  are  represented  as 
furnishing  the  ground  of  final  condemnation. 
We  are  damned  for  unbelief,  but  for  unbelief 
that  perpetuates  and  begets  the  sins  that  damn. 
With  this  understanding  of  the  passage  in 
question,  it  is  immaterial  to  us  in  this  discussion 
whether  it  is  taken  to  represent  the  general 


GROUND    OF   ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     187 

judgment  of  Christians  and  heathen  alike,  or 
simply  that  of  the  latter  class  of  persons  (Stier 
and  others).  The  heathen  and  the  nominally 
Christian  are  both  alike  justified  by  faith  (Rom. 
iii,  30),  and  both  alike,  according  to  a  necessary 
inference,  condemned  by  unbelief;  but  both  ac- 
cording to  their  opportunities  and  knowledge : 
the  nominal  Christian  for  faith  or  unbelief  in 
Christ ;  the  heathen  for  the  same  according  to 
the  light  of  nature  and  the  manifestation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  him.  In  both  cases,  likewise, 
will  there  be  the  corresponding  fruits  of  faith  or 
unbelief,  with  their  consequent  approval  or  con- 
demnation; but  in  this  also  for  the  heathen  ac- 
cording to  his  light  and  opportunities  (Luke  xii, 
48). 

Implicit  in  these  last  statements  is  the  much 
debated  ground  of  final  condemnation  for  those 
who  in  probation  do  not  know  the  historic 
Christ.  As  some  are  received  who  do  not  be- 
lieve in  the  historic  Christ,  so  some  will  no  doubt 
be  condemned  who  do  not  have  the  opportunity 
of  rejecting  the  historic  Christ,  but  who  in  real- 
ity reject  Christ ;  we  do  not  object  to  the  phrase 
"  essential  Christ,"  for  we  think  it  a  convenient 
phrase  to  express  the  truth  in  the  matter.  If 
from  deliberate  and  persistent  choice  the  heathen 


188  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

reject  the  light  they  have,  it  is  to  be  inferred 
that  they  would  also  reject  greater  light  if  given 
to  them.  If  they  will  not  hear  the  voice  of  God 
in  the  teaching  of  nature  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
neither  would  they  believe  though  Christ  were 
preached  to  them.  (See  Luke  xvi,  31.)  For  "  he 
that  is  faithful  in  a  very  little  " — by  application, 
the  heathen  who  strives  to  live  up  to  the  meas- 
ure of  light  possessed — "  is  faithful  also  in  much." 
Such  a  heathen  would  be  faithful  also  in  the 
higher  opportunities  of  the  Gospel.  "  And  he 
that  is  unrighteous  in  a  very  little  "—by  applica- 
tion, the  dim  light  and  opportunities  of  those 
who  know  not  Christ — "  is  unrighteous  also  in 
much :"  by  equal  application,  such  a  person 
would  be  unrighteous  also  in  the  fuller  light  of 
the  revelation  of  God  in  his  Son  (Luke  xvi,  10). 
This  we  think  is  the  only  consistent  and 
scriptural  teaching  upon  the  subject.  The 
heathen  need  no  future  probation  in  order  to 
have  a  fair  chance  of  eternal  life  in  Christ ;  and  it 
is  equally  certain  that  they  will  not  be  damned 
forever  for  not  having  known  the  historic  Christ. 
The  cause  of  missions  must  find  some  other 
ground  of  its  inspiration  than  in  the  unqualified 
damnation  of  the  heathen  for  not  having  been 
permitted  to  hear  the  Gospel — a  thing  for  which 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     ISO 

they  can  in  no  wise  be  responsible,  and  which 
contradicts  the  universal  grace  and  free  oppor- 
tunity of  redemption  for  every  man  for  eternal 
life. 

To  recapitulate,  the  conclusions  of  this  chapter 
are  :  (i)  That  men  in  general  will  not  be  damned 
forever  for  that  over  which  they  have  had  no  con- 
trol, or  for  things  for  which  they  are  not  respon- 
sible. Ability  and  responsibility  are  equal.  They 
will  not,  therefore,  be  condemned  for  the  sin  of 
Adam,  nor  for  any  arbitrary  divine  reprobation 
"  for  the  glory  of  sovereign  justice,"  nor  for  not 
having  received  baptism  or  heard  the  Gospel. 
Besides  these  matters  for  which  persons  are  not 
responsible,  and  for  which  many  have  been  as- 
signed to  an  endless  hell  by  an  irrational  and  un- 
scriptural  theology,  to  be  named  as  not  necessary 
conditions  of  salvation  are,  subscription  to  a  hu- 
man creed,  and  membership  in  a,  or  the,  visible 
Christian  Church.  (2)  On  the  other  hand,  that 
for  which  all  men  deserve  eternal  death  is  re- 
sponsible sin.  By  this  standard  all  are  guilty 
and  deserve  death  ;  for  "  all  have  sinned  and  fall 
short  of  the  glory  of  God."  On  the  ground  of 
this  universal  condemnation  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  probation  is  seen  to  have  no  claim  upon 
divine  justice,  and  this  fact  lays  upon  the  doc- 


190  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

trine  the  demand  of  proving  that  it  is  graciously 
revealed  and  promised — a  thing  which  it  fails  to 
do,  and  which  is  rebutted  by  positive  Scripture 
facts  against  it.  But  from  this  universal  con- 
demnation Christ  came  to  deliver  us.  Conse- 
quently, (3)  That  for  which  men  are  damned 
under  the  Gospel  is  definitive  unbelief,  or  a  final 
rejection  of  the  only  way  of  escape  from  their 
deserved  condemnation.  This  sin  of  definitive 
unbelief  has  different  forms  and  manifestations. 
Its  common  representation  in  the  Scriptures  is 
simple  and  final  unbelief;  but,  as  such,  it  no 
doubt  amounts  to  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Among  certain  Pharisees  and  scribes  in  Christ's 
day  it  assumed  the  distinctive  form  of  the  special 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  while,  as  above 
said,  all  sin  may  be  ultimately  resolved  into  this 
one,  yet  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  represented 
as  a  special  sin,  and,  as  such,  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  more  common  sin  of  unbelief. 
The  final  sin  of  unbelief,  moreover,  may  be 
judged,  and  will  in  the  last  day  be  judged,  ac- 
cording to  Matt,  xxv,  41-46  and  the  Book  of 
Revelation  and  elsewhere,  by  its  fruits;  and  the 
sentence  of  the  Judge  will  then  be  pronounced 
on  the  basis  of  these  fruits.  Unbelief  damns 
under  the  Gospel,  but  unbelief  will  be  judged 


GROUND    OF  ENDLESS  RETRIBUTION.     191 

according  to  its  fruits  of  sin,  as  also  faith,  on  the 
other  hand,  will  be  judged  by  its  fruits. 

These  facts  reveal  to  us  the  relation  of  the 
heathen  to  the  Gospel,  and  to  their  final  con- 
demnation. They  will  not  be  condemned  for 
what  they  have  not,  and  cannot  have,  but  alone 
for  persistently  and  finally  refusing  the  light 
given  them  in  nature  and  the  universal  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  cause  of  missions 
cannot  expect  to  continue  its  appeals  to  the  de- 
votion and  liberality  of  the  Church  on  the  ground 
of  the  indiscriminate  damnation  of  the  heathen 
simply  for  not  having  heard  of  Christ.  Its  ap- 
peal will  hereafter  be  more  rational,  and  true  to 
the  facts  of  Scripture. 


"And  there  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it  any  thing  that  de-' 
fileth,  neither  whatsoever  worketh  abomination,  or  maketh  a 
lie  :  hut  they  which  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life." — 
Rev.  xxi,  27. 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Number  of  the  Lost. 

TH  E  subject  of  the  present  chapter  is  one  of 
the  greatest  importance.  A  false  doctrine 
here  would  involve  the  gravest  consequences; 
and  it  therefore  becomes  us  to  examine  very 
closely  as  to  the  true  teaching  of  the  Scriptures 
concerning  it. 

In  the  writings  of  Universalists,  and  some 
others,  it  is  quite  generally  assumed  that  the 
orthodox  teaching  includes  the  great  mass  of 
mankind  among  the  damned.  A  few  illustrative 
quotations  will  be  in  place.  "  I  was,  of  course, 
immediately  faced  by  the  question,  '  How  can 
life  be  regarded  as  worth  living  by  the  majority 
of  mankind  if,  as  is  taught  by  the  current  relig- 
ious teaching,  they  are  doomed  to  everlasting 
damnation  ?  '  '  (Farrar,  Eternal  Hope,  preface, 
p.  xlvii.  Dr.  Pusey  has  culled  thirteen  passages 
from  Dr.  Farrar's  little  book  in  which  similar 
expressions  are  used.)  "  Many  are  perplexed, 
hesitating  to  receive  as  perfect  and  divine  a  rev- 
elation which,  they  are  told,  in  the  name  of  God 
13 


194  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

consigns  a  large  proportion  of  those  who  in  some 
sense  at  least  are  his  offspring  to  everlasting 
misery"  (Jukes,  Restitution  of  All  Tilings,  pref- 
ace, p.  v).  "  Although  the  grounds  on  which 
these  doctrines  are  alleged  to  rest  differ  widely 
from  one  another,  the  general  conclusion  which 
is  deduced  from  them  is  for  all  practical  pur- 
poses the  same,  namely,  that  Christianity  affirms 
that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  that  innu- 
merable multitude  of  men  who  have  existed  in 
the  past  and  who  exist  in  the  present  will,  after 
this  life  is  ended,  pass  into  a  state  of  endless 
existence  in  never-ending  misery"  (Row,  Future 
Retribution,  p.  2).  "  But  when  we  consider  the 
array  of  figures  which  would  be  required  to  rep- 
resent the  numbers  of  the  human  race  who  have 
existed  in  the  past — according  to  the  best  com- 
putations more  than  twelve  hundred  millions 
exist  in  the  present — and  that  those  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  above  theories,  will  thus  perish 
everlastingly  will  constitute  an  overwhelming 
majority  of  them,  the  thought  is  so  awful  that 
it  may  well  set  men  thinking  whether  such 
theories  can  possibly  be  true  "  (ibid.,  p.  16,  et 
passing. 

But  this  assumption  is  not   true.     The  Chris- 
tian Church  does  not  teach  that  the  majority  of 


NUMBER    OF    THE    LOST.  195 

men  will  be  lost.  Over  against  the  assumption 
\ve  place  the  teaching  of  several  of  the  most 
eminent  advocates  of  the  orthodox  view.  "  A 
single  remark  remains  to  be  made  respecting  the 
extent  and  scope  of  hell.  It  is  only  a  spot  in 
the  universe  of  God.  Compared  with  heaven 
hell  is  narrow  and  limited.  The  kingdom  of 
Satan  is  insignificant  in  contrast  with  the  king- 
dom of  Christ.  In  the  immense  range  of  God's 
dominion  good  is  the  rule  and  evil  is  the  excep- 
tion. Sin  is  a  speck  upon  the  infinite  azure 
of  eternity  ;  a  spot  on  the  sun.  Hell  is  only 
a  corner  of  the  universe  "  (Shedd,  Dogmatic 
Theology,  vol.  ii,  p.  745).  "  We  have  reason  to 
believe,  as  urged  in  the  first  volume  of  this  work, 
and  as  often  urged  elsewhere,  that  the  number 
of  the  finally  lost  in  comparison  with  the  whole 
number  of  the  saved  will  be  very  inconsiderable. 
Our  blessed  Lord,  when  surrounded  by  the  in- 
numerable company  of  the  redeemed,  will  be 
hailed  as  the  Salvator  hominum — the  Saviour  of 
men — as  the  Lamb  that  bore  the  sins  of  the 
world"  (Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  iii, 
p.  879).  "  As  a  final  thought  in  eschatology, 
reference  may  be  made  to  the  vast  preponder- 
ance of  good  over  evil  as  the  fruit  of  redemption 
and  judgment.  Not  only  will  order  be  restored 


190  FUTUKE  KETR1BUT1ON. 

throughout  the  universe,  but  the  good  will  far 
outnumber  the  bad ;  the  saved  will  be  many 
times  more  than  the  lost  "  (A.  Hovey,  Biblical 
EscJiatology,  p.  167).  -"  In  respect,  for  example,  to 
the  number  of  the  saved  and  of  the  lost,  it  is  by 
no  means  just  to  allege  with  Farrar  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  position  of  orthodoxy,  the  latter  class 
must  include  the  vast  majority  of  mankind " 
(E.  D.  Morris,  Is  There  Salvation  After  Death  ? 
p.  235).  "  The  race  in  its  vast  majority,  the 
race  as  such,  is  actually  saved  [at  the  consum- 
mation of  all  things]  ;  and  as  to  the  residue,  it 
will  be  cast  out  not  only  from  God,  but  from 
mankind,  and  not  accounted  of"  (Pope,  Com- 
pendium of  Christian  Theology,  vol.  iii,  p.  428). 
"In  the  termination  of  the  world's  history  the 
gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  universally 
triumphant ;  that  is,  the  mass  of  mankind  shall 
be  Christian  believers  and  children  of  God,  the 
few  only  remaining  obstinate  and  rebellious " 
(Miner  Raymond,  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii,  p. 
517).  According  to  Shedd,  even  Calvin  and 
Edwards  believed  the  majority  of  mankind  would 
be  saved  (ut  supra,  p.  747). 

We  now  propose  to  examine  the  grounds  of 
this  larger  view,  and  to  consider  certain  passages 
of  Scripture  which  seem  to  contradict  it. 


Of-'    'J'HE    LOST.  ]07 

It  must  be  confessed  at  the  outset,  however, 
that  the  question  is  a  very  difficult  one,  and  one 
which  does  not  easily  admit  of  a  categorical 
affirmative  either  one  way  or  the  other.  One 
manifest  reason  is  that  it  is  a  contingent  question 
so  far  as  responsible  persons  are  concerned. 
Whether  many  or  fe\v  will  be  saved  depends 
wholly  upon  the  willingness  or  final  refusal  of 
men  to  be  saved.  As  to  what  will  be  the  actual 
outcome,  therefore,  we  cannot  confidently  know 
except  by  predictive  revelation — a  thing  that  is 
nowhere  given. 

It  is  very  certain  that  no  doctrine  upon  the 
subject  can  be  based  upon  the  comparative  num- 
bers in  the  parables  of  our  Lord.  In  the  para- 
ble of  the  Virgins  five  are  wise  and  five  foolish, 
but  in  that  of  the  Talents  the  proportion  of  the 
faithful  to  the  unfaithful  is  as  two  to  one,  and  in 
the  parable  of  the  Wedding-garment  (a  parable 
within  a  parable)  only  one  is  cast  out  into  the 
outer  darkness  (Matt,  xxii,  11-14). 

The  words  of  our  Lord  in  Matt,  vii,  13,  14, 
21-23;  Luke  xiii,  23-30,  must  be  given  in  full: 
"  Enter  ye  in  by  the  narrow  gate :  for  wide  is 
the  gate,  and  broad  is  the  way,  that  leadeth  to 
destruction,  and  many  be  they  that  enter  in 
thereby.  For  narrow  is  the  gate,  and  straitened 


198  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

the  way,  that  leacleth  unto  life,  and  few  be  they 
that  find  it."  "Not  every  one  that  saith  unto 
me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my 
Father  which  is  heaven.  Many  will  say  to  me 
in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  did  we  not  prophesy  by 
thy  name,  and  by  thy  name  cast  out  devils,  and 
by  thy  name  do  many  mighty  works  ?  And  then 
will  I  profess  unto  them,  I  never  knew  you:  de- 
part from  me,  ye  that  work  iniquity."  "And 
one  said  unto  him,  Lord,  are  they  few  that  be 
saved?  And  he  said  unto  them,  Strive  to  enter 
in  by  the  narrow  door  :  for  many,  I  say  unto  you, 
shall  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able. 
When  once  the  master  of  the  house  is  risen  up, 
and  hath  shut  to  the  door,  and  ye  begin  to  stand 
without,  and  to  knock  at  the  door,  saying,  Lord, 
open  to  us  ;  and  he  shall  answer  and  say  to  you, 
I  know  you  not  whence  ye  are ;  then  shall  ye 
begin  to  say,  We  did  eat  and  drink  in  thy  pres- 
ence, and  thou  didst  teach  in  our  streets  ;  and 
he  shall  say,  I  tell  you,  I  know  not  whence  ye 
are ;  depart  from  me,  all  ye  workers  of  iniquity. 
There  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth, 
when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
yourselves  cast  forth  without.  And  they  shall 


NUMBER    Of    THE   LOST.  199 

come  from  the  east  and  west,  and  from  the  north 
and  south,  and  shall  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of 
God.  And  behold,  there  are  last  which  shall  be 
first,  and  there  are  first  which  shall  be  last." 

With  regard  to  these  passages  we  offer  the  fol- 
lowing remarks:  (i)"Many"  will  be  cast  out 
and  lost.  "  Many  will  say  to  me  in  that  day 
[certainly  the  last  day,  or  day  of  judgment], 
Lord,  Lord,  did  we  not  prophesy  by  thy  name," 
etc.  "  And  then  will  I  profess  unto  them,  I  never 
knew  you  :  depart  from  me  [compare  Matt,  xxv, 
41],  ye  that  work  iniquity."  But  this  reveals 
nothing  as  to  proportion;  for  "many"  maybe 
lost,  and  more  saved.  (2)  On  the  other  hand,  the 
word  "  few  "  *  is  used  but  once  in  these  passages 
by  our  Lord,  and  then  in  no  unmistakable  refer- 
ence to  the  number  of  the  finally  saved.  In 
Luke,  where  the  questioner  uses  the  word,  Christ 
simply  signifies  that  "many"  will  be  lost,  but 
does  not  say  "  few"  will  be  saved.  He  certainly 
avoids  a  direct  answer,  and  seems  to  intend : 
"  Without  saying  any  thing  as  to  the  number  of 
the  saved,  many  will  be  lost ;  therefore,  strive  ye 

*  The  phrase,  "For  many  are  called,  but  few  chosen,"  in 
Matt,  xx,  16,  is  omitted  in  the  Revised  Version,  and  the  same 
phrase  in  Matt,  xxii,  14,  has  undoubted  reference  to  the  Jews. 
They  were  all  called,  but  "  few  "  of  them  accepted  Christ.  (See 
the  whole  parable,  verses  1-14.) 


200  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

to  enter  in  by  the  narrow  door."  In  Matt,  vii, 
14  (the  instance  where  our  Lord  uses  the  word), 
is  given  a  description  simply  of  the  state  of  things 
as  Christ  observed  them.  Few  to  whom  the 
Gospel  was  offered  accepted  it.  The  same  is  true 
now.  But  this  clearly  says  nothing  as  to  the  final 
outcome  of  life.  Few  are  walking  in  the  way 
that  leads  to  life,  but  men  maybe  saved  in  Christ 
in  the  last  hour.  Witness  the  familiar  case  cf 
the  thief  on  the  cross.  So  many — the  multitude — 
are  walking  in  the  way  "  that  leadeth  to  destruc- 
tion," but  through  grace  may  be,  and  no  doubt 
many  will  be,  saved  at  last.  The  way  that  leadeth 
to  destruction  is  not  itself  destruction.  In  order 
to  prove  from  this  passage  that  the  few  only  will 
be  saved,  it  would  be  necessary  to  assume  that 
to  be  lost  now  is  to  be  lost  forever. 

In  favor  of  the  doctrine  that  the  great  majority 
of  the  human  race  will  be  saved  may  be  urged : 

i.  The  fact  that  children  dying  in  infancy  will 
be  saved.  Even  Calvinists,  as  Dr.  Hodge,  now 
teach  this  doctrine.  This  writer  says  :  "  All  who 
die  in  infancy  are  saved  "  (Systematic  Theology, 
vol.  i,  p.  26).  "  The  Scriptures  nowhere  exclude 
any  class  of  infants,  baptized  or  unbaptized,  born 
in  Christian  or  in  heathen  lands,  of  believing  or 
unbelieving  parents,  from  the  benefits  of  the 


NUMBER    OF    THE    LOST.  201 

redemption  of  Christ  "  (ibid.}.  To  die  in  child- 
hood is  to  such  Calvinists  a  sign  of  election. 
"  But  we  may  still  go  a  step  further  within 
the  strict  limits  of  the  Reformed  Creed,  and 
maintain  as  a  pious  opinion  that  all  departed 
infants  belong  to  the  number  of  the  elect.  Their 
early  removal  from  a  world  of  sin  and  temptation 
may  be  taken  as  an  indication  of  God's  special 
favor  "  (Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  vol.  i,  p. 
380).  From  this  teaching  alone  it  follows  that 
the  majority  of  the  human  race  will  be  saved, 
for  the  majority  die  before  the  age  of  account- 
ability. 

2.  We  cannot  judge  between  the  saved  and 
the  lost  by  a  sharp  line  of  moral  distinction  : 
and,  accordingly,  many  may  be  saved  who  by  the 
standard  of  Christian  morality  manifest  no  sign 
of  regenerate  life.  We  have  before  pointed  out 
this  fact  in  relation  to  the  heathen.  The  same 
may  be  said  as  to  some  persons  in  nominally 
Christian  countries  whose  opportunities  of  moral 
improvement  have  been  much  limited.  A  few 
quotations  in  the  line  of  this  thought  from  sev- 
eral prominent  writers  will  be  in  place : 

"We  are,  then,  wholly  ignorant  of  the  rule  by 
which  they  [the  heathen]  will  be  judged.  What 
would  be  heavy  sin  in  us  may  be  none  in  them  ; 


202  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

we  cannot  tell  how  far  the  exposure  of  infants 
may  be  a  sin  in  China,  unless  God  by  his  secret 
voice  appeal  to  any  individual  parent  against  the 
hereditary  custom,  or  cannibalism  in  a  nation  of 
cannibals.  But  since  we  are  not  God,  and  he  has 
not  bestowed  on  us  his  prerogative  of  searching 
the  hearts,  we  have  absolutely  no  ground  upon 
which  to  form  a  judgment;  nor  do  Christians 
form  any. 

"  With  the  actual  heathen  far  out  of  reach  of 
the  Gospel  must  be  counted  a  large  portion  of 
the  poor  which  the  Church  has  lost  in  large  cities, 
as  London  and  Paris,  on  whose  souls  the  light 
of  the  Gospel  never  shone.  London  is,  alas  !  in 
all  probability  one  of  the  largest  heathen  cities 
in  the  world,  and  very  many  of  its  inhabitants 
will  be  judged,  we  must  suppose,  by  the  same 
law  as  the  heathen  in  China  and  Japan.  'God 
will,'  in  the  great  day,  St.  Paul  says,  'judge  the 
secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ  according  to  my 
gospel.'  The  very  terms  forbid  our  judging,  since 
they  are  the  secrets  of  the  heart  which  God  will 
judge  "  (Pusey,  What  is  of  Faitk  as  to  Everlast- 
ing Punishment?  pp.  9,  10.  See  the  whole  of 
this  section  and  the  following  one,  pp.  7-18). 

"  But  if  Abraham  and  Melchisedek,  if  Joseph 
and  Moses,  if  Rahab  and  Cornelius,  if  a  great 


XUAfBER    OF    THE   LOST.  '_><>:} 

number  of  the  chosen  people  in  every  age  may 
have  been  penitent  for  sin,  and  accepted  by  the 
Father  of  mercies  through  the  atonement  yet  to 
be  made,  or  an  atonement  already  made  without 
their  knowledge,  surely  no  one  can  deny  the  pos- 
sibility of  salvation  to  the  heathen  who  know  not 
the  name  of  Jesus.  Of  course,  no  one  is  able  to 
say  how  many  of  this  class  there  have  been  among 
the  heathen  since  the  world  began,  or  how  many 
there  may  yet  be  before  the  end  comes  ;  but, 
whether  few  or  many,  all  who  are  so  renewed  in 
the  temper  of  their  minds  that  they  will  recog- 
nize Christ  whenever  he  is  made  known  to  them, 
as  fulfilling  all  their  desire  and  hope,  will  be  num- 
bered at  the  last  great  day  with  the  redeemed  " 
(A.  Hovey,  ut  supra,  p.  173). 

"If  the  prayers  and  alms  of  Cornelius  were 
had  in  divine  remembrance — if  in  every  nation 
he  that  feareth  God  and  worketh  righteousness 
is  accepted  of  him — if  our  Lord  heard  the  out- 
er}' of  the  dying  thief,  and  carried  him  as  a  trophy 
at  once  into  the  paradise  whither  he  himself  was 
just  going  in  triumph,  may  we  not,  without  either 
indulging  in  the  universalistic  delusion  or  contra- 
dicting our  own  doctrine,  still  cherish  with  Pusey 
a  large  and  comforting  hope  respecting  many, 
perhaps  multitudes,  who  live  and  die,  alas!  out- 


204  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

side  of  the  blessed  circle  of  the  Household  of 
Faith  ?  "  (Morris,  Is  There  Salvation  After  Death  ? 
p.  236.) 

Is  it  not,  we  may  ask,  in  connection  with  this 
doctrine  that  Christ's  words  concerning  Tyre  and 
Sidon  and  Sodom,  and  the  two  passages  in  First 
Peter,  may  be  appropriately  urged  ?  We  have 
seen  that  they  cannot  teach  a  future  probation 
for  the  reason  that  in  all  cases  the  representa- 
tions of  mercy,  however  large,  are  concerning 
sins  committed  in  this  life  alone.  But  we  must 
confess  we  are  not  satisfied  with  the  common 
interpretation  of  these  passages,  especially  the 
two  in  First  Peter.  We  cannot  understand  these 
latter  passages,  whatever  more  they  may  mean, 
to  signify  less  than  (i)  That  Christ  in  his  disem- 
bodied condition  went  into  the  spirit-world  ;  (2) 
That  there  he  preached  unto  the  "  spirits  in 
prison "  the  Gospel ;  (3)  That  the  spirits  to 
whom  he  preached,  among  others,  were  those 
who  "  were  disobedient,  when  the  long-suffering 
of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Noah,  while  the 
ark  was  a  preparing."  Can  we  believe  all  those 
people  perished  everlastingly  after  suffering  the 
destruction  of  the  flood  ?  May  we  not  rather 
believe,  in  view  of  the  teaching  of  Peter,  that 
many  of  them  are  saved  eternally,  while  at  the 


NUMBER   OF    THE  LOST.  205 

same  time  God  could  do  no  better  than  destroy 
them  temporally  f 

If  \ve  are  to  distinguish  between  the  temporal 
destructions  of  peoples  and  the  eternal  destruc- 
tion of  individuals,  it  would  seem  that  in  the 
case  of  Tyre  and  Sidon  and  Sodom,  and  other 
ancient  cities,  many,  perhaps  multitudes,  whose 
lives  God  destroyed  with  their  cities  will  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Nineveh 
was  to  be  destroyed  for  its  wickedness,  and  yet 
God  said  to  Jonah  that  many  of  the  people  were 
so  ignorant  as  to  be  unable  to  "  discern  between 
their  right  hand  and  their  left  hand  "  (chapter  iv, 
ii).  Can  we  suppose  they  would  have  been  de- 
stroyed everlastingly  with  the  destruction  of  their 
city,  had  Nineveh  not  repented?  We  cannot 
suppose  so,  and  this  case  must  throw  light  upon 
all  similar  cases;  and  we  must  conclude  that  the 
inference  involved  here  is  the  correct  one. 

3.  The  difficulties  that  we  met  in  considering 
the  doctrine  of  Universalism  would  be  all  the 
greater  on  the  assumption  that  the  majority  of 
mankind  will  be  lost.  The  divine  love  and  fore- 
knowledge, and  the  question  of  a  benevolent 
teleology,  would  be  all  the  more  difficult  to 
understand.  We  cannot  believe  the  majority  of 
the  race  of  men  will  be  lost,  in  view  of  these 


206  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

facts,  without  the  clearest  revelation  concerning 
it.  This  certainly  is  not  given. 

It  is  in  this  last  respect  that  the  present 
doctrine,  in  urging  these  facts,  differs  from 
Universalism  when  it  urges  the  same  ;  for  in  the 
case  of  the  latter  doctrine  the  revelation,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  unmistakable. 

4.  For  the  same  reasons  we  can  the  more  con- 
sistently urge  passages  of  Scripture  like  the 
following  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  we  are  con- 
sidering :  "  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul, 
and  shall  be  satisfied"  (Isa.  liii,  1 1)  ;  "Behold, 
the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world  !"  (John  i,  29),  etc.  Such  passages  as 
these  could  not  well  have  been  inspired  in  the 
confident  foreknowledge  of  the  damnation  of  the 
majority  of  men. 

Observe,  however,  we  do  not  claim  that  such 
passages  teach  that  the  majority  of  men  will  be 
saved,  but  simply  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  clear 
revelation  that  the  majority  will  be  lost,  they 
encourage  this  hope. 

We  would  remind  the  reader,  in  conclusion, 
that  our  chief  concern  with  the  present  question 
should  be,  as  Christ  no  doubt  made  it,  personal. 
According  to  our  Lord,  as  we  have  seen, 
"  many  "  will  be  lost,  and  our  fear  should  be  lest 


NUMBER    OF    7HE   LOST.  207 

we  be  among  that  number.  "  Strive  to  enter  in 
by  the  narrow  door :  for  many,  I  say  unto  you, 
shall  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able." 
"  But  I  will  warn  you  whom  ye  shall  fear  :  Fear 
him,  which  after  he  hath  killed  hath  power  to 
cast  into  hell ;  yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him  " 
(Luke  xii,  5).  "  But  I  buffet  my  body,  and 
bring  it  into  bondage  :  lest  by  any  means,  after 
that  I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should 
be  rejected"  (l  Cor.  ix,  27). 


"Knowing  therefore  the   terror  of  the   Lord,   we  persuade 
men." — 2  Cor.  v,  u. 

"  For  our  God  is  a  consuming  tire." — Heb.  xii,  29. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Nature  of  Future  Punishment. 

THE  nature  of  future  punishment  is  a  question 
in  itself  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  is 
not  to  be  confounded  with  either  of  the  other 
chief  questions  discussed  in  this  book.  We 
place  it  here  as  the  most  suitable  time  for  its 
consideration.  Its  importance  arises  from  sev- 
eral facts.  I.  It  is  important  that  we  should 
know,  as  fully  as  revealed,  the  nature  of  future 
punishment  in  order  that  the  doctrine  may  have 
its  proper  influence  upon  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  men.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  future  punish- 
ment that  the  doctrine  finds  value  as  a  deterrent 
from  sin.  2.  Its  consideration  is  important, 
further,  from  the  fact  that  its  awfulness  has  been 
greatly  exaggerated.  The  damnation  of  the  lost 
is  awful  enough  as  represented  in  the  Scriptures, 
without  any  human  additions.  3.  On  the  other 
hand,  its  terrors  have  been  made  largely  to  dis- 
appear by  over-benevolent  representations  of  it. 
Our  aim  shall  be  to  present  the  doctrine  in  its 
true  scriptural  proportions. 
14 


210  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

As  a  matter  of  course,  it  is  impossible  to  know 
the  exact  nature  of  future  punishment  except  in 
the  experience  of  it.  It  cannot  be  revealed. 
Consequently  we  find  in  the  Scriptures  only  sen- 
sible and  figurative  representations  of  it.  These 
are  given  under  the  following  classified  forms  : 
I.  "  Fire  "  and  the  "  worm."  "  Where  their  worm 
dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not  quenched  "  (Mark 
ix,  48).  2.  "  Outer  darkness,"  or  "  blackness  of 
darkness."  "And  cast  ye  out  the  unprofitable 
servant  into  the  outer  darkness"  (Matt,  xxv,  30). 
"  For  whom  the  blackness  of  darkness  hath  been 
reserved  forever"  (Jude  13;  also  2  Pet.  ii,  17). 
3.  'Perishing,"  "destruction,"  "corruption," 
"  death."  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believ- 
eth  on  him  should  not  perish"  (John  iii,  16).  "Who 
shall  suffer  punishment,  even  eternal  destruction 
from  the  face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of 
his  might"  (2  Thess.  i,  9).  "For  he  that  soweth 
unto  his  flesh  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption  " 
(Gal.  vi,  8).  "This  is  the  second  death,  even 
the  lake  of  fire  "  (Rev.  xx,  14).  4.  "  Torment." 
"  And  he  said,  I  pray  thee  therefore,  father,  that 
thou  wouldest  send  him  to  my  father's  house  ; 
for  I  have  five  brethren ;  that  he  may  testify 
unto  them,  lest  they  also  come  into  this  place  of 


NATURE   OF  PUNISHMENT.  211 

torment"  (Luke  xvi,  27,  28).  "And  they  shall 
be  tormented  day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever  " 
(Rev.  xx,  10).  5.  Other  expressions  suggestive 
of  the  terribleness  of  the  state  of  the  wicked  are 
"  cast  away  "  and  "  lost."  "  But  the  bad  they 
cast  away  "  (Matt,  xiii,  48).  "  For  what  is  a 
man  profited,  if  he  gain  the  whole  world,  and 
lose  or  forfeit  his  own  self"  (Luke  ix,  25).  As  a 
result  of  being  excluded  from  heaven,  we  are 
told  "  there  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
teeth  "  (Matt,  xxv,  30). 

Now,  after  allowing  all  we  may  be  asked  to 
allow  for  the  natural  exaggeration  of  Oriental 
hyperbole  that  may  be  found  in  these  expres- 
sions, still  we  cannot  but  see  in  them  the  repre- 
sentation of  a  terrible  reality  for  the  wicked. 
"  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of 
the  living  God  "  (Heb.  x,  31).  Two  things  seem 
perfectly  clear  :  (i)  The  lost  will  be  excluded 
from  the  presence  of  God,  and  the  life  and 
blessedness  of  the  saved.  Only  the  righteous 
shall  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  shall  be 
permitted  to  enter  in  by  the  gates  into  the  city 
(Rev.  xxii,  14).  This  is  the  negative  side  of 
the  punishment  of  the  lost,  and  has  been  called 
the  penalty  of  loss  (pcena  damnt),  or  absence  of 
the  beatific  vision  (carcntia  beatifica  visionis}. 


212  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

If  this  were  all  of  hell  we  should  seek  diligently 
to  escape  it.  But  (2)  it  is  also  certain  from  the 
Bible  representations  of  hell  that  the  wicked  will 
suffer  a  more  positive  penalty  than  is  signified  in 
these  negative  expressions.  Such  is  implied  in 
the  word  "  torment"  used  in  the  parable  of  the 
Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  and  in  Rev.  xx,  10. 
This,  however,  is  most  likely  itself  the  result 
simply  of  being  without  God,  the  source  of  our 
life  and  joy.  The  negative  penalty  of  loss  in- 
volves the  positive  penalty  of  pain  (pcena  sensus). 
The  absence  of  the  beatific  vision  creates  the 
loneliness  and  desolateness  of  the  soul  that  is 
"  without  God "  and  without  "  hope."  The 
presence  of  darkness  is  but  the  absence  of  light, 
the  presence  of  death  but  the  absence  of  life. 

This  exclusion  from  the  divine  presence,  with 
its  negative  and  positive  implications,  may  in- 
involve  also  remorse  (Luke  xvi,  25)  and  the  evils 
of  association  with  the  damned  (Rev.  xxii,  15). 
It,  of  course,  implies  exclusion  from  the  enjoy- 
ments of  this  life  (Hodge). 

We  do  not  feel  authorized  to  say  less  of  the 
condition  of  the  lost,  nor  need  we  say  more. 

We  are,  accordingly,  obliged  to  think  the 
following  representations  too  mild  to  express  the 
true  sense  of  the  Scriptures.  "  The  will,  in  the 


NATURE   OF  PUNISHMENT.  213 

exercise  of  its  imperishable  gift  of  freedom,  may 
frustrate  [the  divine]  education  .  .  .  ;  but  if  it 
does  so,  it  is  because  it  '  kicks  against  the  pricks  ' 
of  the  long-suffering  that  is  leading  it  to  repent- 
ance ;  and  ...  it  may  accept  even  an  endless 
punishment,  and  find  peace  in  the  acceptance  " 
(Plumptre,  Spirits  in  Prison,  p.  340).  "  Thousands 
in  this  world  are  in  conditions  which  other 
thousands  pronounce  worse  than  non-existence, 
but  they  themselves  struggle  hard  and  do  their 
utmost  to  perpetuate  their  being — it  may  be 
through  the  fear  of  something  worse,  but  more 
likely,  in  most  cases,  from  an  inherent  natural 
love  of  conscious  life.  Sin  may  be  declared  to  be 
exceeding  sinful  because  it  is  offensive  to  God, 
whatever  be  its  consequences  to  the  sinner  him- 
self; and  it  is  so  again,  because  to  the  sinner  it 
is  a  bar  to  the  attainment  of  an  infinite  good, 
and  is  the  source  of  an  evil  inconceivably  great, 
even  though  it  do  not  wholly  overbalance  the 
bliss  of  being"  (Miner  Raymond,  Systematic 
Theology,  vol.  i,  p.  357). 

Such  teaching,  we  are  compelled  to  think,  robs 
hell  of  its  terrors,  and  contradicts  the  spirit  and 
explicit  representations  of  the  Scriptures. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  go  beyond  the  Scripture  representations 


214  FUTURE    RETRIBUTION. 

in  the  matter,  and  picture  to  ourselves  a  state  of 
things  more  terrible  than  that  revealed.  The 
following  doctrines,  therefore,  maybe  rejected  as 
without  warrant  in  the  word  of  God  : 

1.  That  which  represents  the  "  fire  "  of  hell  as 
literal  fire.     Few  only  (as  does  Dr.  Pusey)  hold  to 
this  view  to-day.     The  commoner  view  makes 
the  fire  of  perdition  symbolize  the   punishment 
of  the  lost. 

Against  the  literal  view  may  be  urged:  (i) 
The  fact  that  if  the  "  fire  "  must  be  considered 
literal,  so  also  must  the  "  worm  ;  "  but  these  are 
incompatible.  (2)  The  further  representations 
of  the  state  of  the  lost  as  given  above  are  mu- 
tually exclusive  on  the  basis  of  a  literal  inter- 
pretation. "  Blackness  of  darkness  "  is  not  con- 
sistent with  literal  fire. 

2.  That   which     represents    God   as    inflicting 
positive   punishment.      This   is  a   very  common 
view.     To   select  one  quotation  out  of  a  multi- 
tude, we  may  give  the  following  :  "  Future  suffer- 
ing  is  not   exclusively  the   natural    consequence 
of  sin,    but   also   includes    positive    inflictions  " 
(Hodge,  Systematic  TJieology,  vol.  iii,  p.  868). 

We  must  ask  the  advocates  of  this  view 
for  the  grounds  of  their  assertion.  We  have  not 
been  able  to  find  them. 


NATURE   OF  PUNISHMENT.  215 

3.  Other  excessive  representations  are  all  Dnn- 
tean   pictures  of  the  condition  of  the  lost.     \V 
know  no  warrant  for  such  explorations  and  descrip- 
tions of  the  place  and  condition  of  the  damned, 
and  we  certainly  take  no  pleasure  in  such  a  task. 

4.  We  know   no  sufficient  warrant,  moreover, 
for  the  assertion  made  by  some,  that  the  lost  will 
have  their  bodies  given   to  them  in  the  resurrec- 
tion in    order  to  increase   their   sufferings.     The 
statement  is  confessedly  only  an   inference  from 
the  fact    of   their    resurrection,   and    we    should 
be  extremely  cautious  of  inferences  upon  a  sub- 
ject about  which  we  know  so  little.* 

But  without  being  able  to  determine  more  pre- 
cisely than  we  have  the  condition  of  the  lost, 
we  know  from  further  Scripture  representation 
that  it  is  better  for  a  man  to  pluck  out  a  right 
eye,  or  cut  off  a  right  foot  or  arm,  or  to  suffer  the 
destruction  of  the  whole  body  than  to  be  cast  into 
hell  (Mark  ix,  43, 45,  47  ;  Luke  xii,  4,  5) :  and  that 
it  were  good  for  such  an  one  as  is  cast  therein  if 
he  had  not  been  born  (Matt,  xxvi,  24). 

*  The  ease  with  which  some  writers  multiply  their  assertions 
upon  this  subject  would  suggest  that  they  know  much  more 
about  it  than  has  been  revealed.  We  know  no  part  of  our  gen- 
eral subject  where  we  should  adhere  more  closely  to  the  Script- 
ures than  here  ;  and  yet  because  so  little  is  revealed  writers  are 
no  doubt  all  the  more  tempted  to  add  their  own  conjectures. 


"And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment."— 
Matt,  xxv,  46. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The    Doctrine   of  Annihilation. 

THE  doctrine  of  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked 
is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  of  Universalism.  Its  advocates  strenu- 
ously oppose  the  latter  error.  They  strongly 
advocate  eternal  punishment  ;  not,  however,  as 
an  eternal  endurance,  but  in  its  results.  If  the 
wicked  are  annihilated,  they  say,  their  punish- 
ment is  eternal  in  that  its  effects  last  forever. 
The  doctrine,  therefore,  may  properly  be  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  subject  of  the 
nature  of  future  punishment. 

There  are  two  forms  of  the  doctrine — Annihi- 
lationism  proper  and  the  doctrine  of  Conditional 
Immortality,  otherwise  known  as  "  life  in  Christ." 
The  two  doctrines  are  one  in  their  outcome — the 
extinction  of  evil  and  evil-doers — but  differ  in 
other  fundamental  points.  The  chief  points  of 
difference  concern  the  doctrine  of  native  immor- 
tality and  the  method  of  ultimate  annihilation. 
Annihilationism  teaches  that  the  soul  was  created 
immortal;  Conditional  Immortality  teaches  that 


218  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION, 

it  was  created  mortal,  with  the  capacity  of  im- 
mortalization. Immortality  is  a  gift  of  God  in 
Christ.  If  sin  had  not  entered  into  the  world 
this  gift  would  have  been  conferred  (sacrament- 
ally,  we  suppose)  through  the  "  tree  of  life," 
from  whose  fruit  our  first  parents  were  excluded 
after  their  fall.  Christ  is  the  new  tree  of  life 
through  whom,  under  grace,  we  again  find  access 
to  immortality.  In  the  view  of  this  doctrine 
immortality  is  thus  an  acquisition,  not  an  original 
endowment ;  and  extinction  of  being  is  but  the 
ultimate  outcome  of  a  responsible  failure  to  ob- 
tain the  life  graciously  offered  to  all  in  Christ. 
The  other  form  of  the  doctrine,  adhering  to  the 
metaphysical  view  that  the  soul  is  immortal  by 
original  constitution,  teaches  that  its  annihilation 
is  by  a  divine  destructive  act  corresponding  to 
the  divine  creative  act  in  its  origination.  In 
the  doctrine  of  Conditional  Immortality  the  soul 
dies  of  itself,  ultimately,  if  without  Christ;  in  the 
doctrine  of  Annihilation  the  soul  that  sinneth  is 
ultimately  destroyed  ;  its  immortality,  being  for- 
feited through  sin,  is,  in  the  end,  taken  from  it. 
Both  doctrines  teach  a  limited  duration  of  con- 
scious suffering  for  the  wicked  in  the  future  life. 
Such,  in  brief,  is  a  doctrine  in  its  twofold 
aspect,  which  (especially  in  the  form  of  life  in 


DOCTRINE   OF  ANNIHILATION.  219 

Christ)  is  meeting  with  considerable  favor  in  cer- 
tain very  respectable  quarters  ;  and  we  confess 
to  a  very  strong  liking  for  it.  If  our  liking  fora 
doctrine  were  all  that  we  were  required  to  con- 
sider we  would  find  no  difficulty  in  knowing 
where  to  cast  the  anchor  of  our  faith.  Both 
doctrines  (especially  the  latter)  have  much  in  their 
favor.  A  divine  theodicy  is  much  easier  under 
either  view  than  under  the  orthodox  doctrine. 
One  of  the  heaviest  burdens  the  latter  doctrine 
is  required  to  sustain  is  the  eternal  continuance 
of  evil  in  a  benevolent  universe.  Annihilation- 
ism  does  away  with  this  difficulty  by  providing 
for  the  ultimate  extinction  of  evil  when  the  good 
and  the  pure  and  the  happy  will  be  "  all  in  all," 
when  sin  shall  no  longer  exist  even  as  a  "  speck 
on  the  infinite  azure  of  eternity,"  but  when  the 
last  spot  on  the  sun  of  righteousness  shall  be 
effaced.  The  doctrine  (always  especially  the 
second  form)  is  not  wholly  destitute  of  exeget- 
ical  points.  But  when  tested  by  the  whole  tes- 
timony of  the  Scriptures,  we  are  compelled  to 
believe  that  it  is  found  wanting,  and  must,  there- 
fore, be  rejected.  We  part  from  it  as  from  a 
doctrine  we  would  like  to  believe. 

As  the  two  forms  of  the  doctrine  readily  clas- 
sify in  all  essential  respects,  they  may  be  consid- 


220  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

ered  together.  We  propose  in  the  present  chap- 
ter to  review  the  chief  grounds  of  the  general 
doctrine. 

I.  The  argument  of  the  Annihilationist  is  based 
chiefly  upon  the  use  in  the  Scriptures  of  such 
words  as  "death,"  "destruction,"  "perishing," 
etc.  To  quote  solely  from  the  New  Testament, 
some  of  the  texts  upon  which  much  confidence 
is  placed  are  as  follows :  "  For  the  wages  of  sin 
is  death"  (Rom.  vi,  23);  "  For  if  ye  live  after 
the  flesh,  ye  must  die  "  (ibid.,  viii,  13)  ;  "  And  be 
not  afraid  of  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are 
not  able  to  kill  the  soul  :  but  rather  fear  him 
which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in 
hell  "  (Matt,  x,  28)  ;  "  Broad  is  the  way  that 
leadeth  to  destruction"  (Matt,  vii,  13);  "For 
God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life  "  (John 
iii,  16);  "Who  shall  suffer  punishment,  even 
eternal  destruction  from  the  face  of  the  Lord 
and  from  the  glory  of  his  might  "  (2  Thess.  i,  9). 

But  we  reply  to  the  argument  based  upon 
such  passages  of  Scripture,  that  these  words  are 
used  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  properly  suggest 
simply  the  nature  of  eternal  punishment.  In 
proof  of  this  assertion  we  offer  the  following 


DOCTRINE    OF  ANNIHILATION.  221 

facts:  (i)  The  words  "death,"  "destruction," 
etc.,  are  used  of  persons  in  this  life  who  are  liv- 
ing in  sin.  The  prodigal  son,  the  "  sheep,"  and 
the  "piece  of  silver  "  were  lost  (destroyed),  and 
Christ  came  "  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost  [destroyed]*  "  (Luke  xv,  3-7,  8-10,  24, 
32 ;  xix,  10).  Men  are,  according  to  Paul,  al- 
ready "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  "  (Eph.  ii, 
I,  5  ;  Col.  ii,  13),  and  "she  that  giveth  herself 
to  pleasure  is  dead  while  she  liveth  "  (i  Tim. 
v,  6) — dead  evidently  to  the  higher  life  of  right- 
eousness and  holiness.  The  prodigal  son  also 
was  "  dead  "  as  well  as  "  destroyed  "  (Luke  xv, 
24,  32).  The  morally  and  spiritually  corrupt  are 
the  "dead"  and  the  "destroyed,"  according  to  the 
New  Testament ;  and  the  eternity  of  the  finally 
lost  is  but  the  endless  continuation  of  this  state 
begun  on  earth,  as  the  eternal  life  of  the  right- 
eous is  but  the  endless  continuance  of  a  life  of 
holiness  begun  here.  The  Platonic  use  of  these 
words  in  the  sense  of  extinction  of  being  is 

*  It  is  an  unfortunate  comment  that  Dr.  Petavel  {Extinction 
of  Evil,  p.  46)  makes  on  these  cases  when  he  says :  "  But_/0r  a 
time  the  prodigal  son. was  as  good  as  lost  [destroyed]  to  his  fa- 
ther, and  the  coin  as  good  as  destroyed  to  its  owner."  Yes,  we 
reply,  as  good  as  lost  to  the  father  and  as  good  as  destroyed  to 
the  owner,  but  not  destroyed  in  themselves.  The  eternally  lost 
are  as  good  as  destroyed  to  their  Father,  and  worse  than  de- 
stroyed to  themselves,  but  not  annihilated. 


222  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

not  that  of  the  New  Testament.  (2)  The  word 
"  life  "  is  used,  correspondingly,  with  reference 
not  simply  to  existence,  but  to  a  life  of  right- 
eousness. There  are  several  instances  where 
the  word  cannot  be  made  naturally  to  signify 
immortality.  One  of  these  is  Rom.  viii,  6  :  "  For 
the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  death  ;  but  the  mind  of 
the  spirit  is  life  and  peace."  Other  instances 
are  :  "  But  godliness  is  profitable  for  all  things, 
having  promise  of  the  life  which  now  is,  and  of 
that  which  is  to  come  "  (i  Tim.  iv,  8) ;  "  We 
know  that  we  have  passed  out  of  death  into  life, 
because  we  love  the  brethren.  He  that  loveth 
not  abideth  in  death  "  (i  John  iii,  14).  Only  an 
artificial  interpretation  can  make  either  the  word 
"  death  "  or  "  life  "  in  these  passages  signify  more 
than  a  metaphorical  condition  of  soul.  (3)  Con- 
firmatory of  the  figurative  interpretation  of  these 
terms  is  to  be  offered  the  fact  that  the  New 
Testament  repeatedly  uses  figurative  expressions 
concerning  the  state  of  the  soul.  "  Ye  must  be 
born  again  "  (John  iii,  7)  is  a  familiar  instance. 
Christ  here  did  not  mean  that  the  soul  needed 
to  be  brought  into  existence,  but  that  it  needed 
to  be  renewed  in  righteousness,  and  brought  into 
the  life  of  righteousness.  (4)  2  Thess.  i,  9,  in- 
stead of  furnishing  evidence  of  annihilation, 


DOCTRINE   OF  ANNIH1LA  TION.  223 

explicitly  contradicts  the  annihilationist's  use 
of  the  word  "destruction."  "Who  shall  suffer 
punishment,  even  eternal  destruction  from  the 
face  of  the  Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  his 
might."  Here  the  meaning  of  the  term  "de- 
struction "  is  defined  in  the  subsequent  part  of 
the  sentence.  The  destruction  consists,  evident- 
ly, according  to  the  apostle,  in  the  banishment 
of  the  soul  from  the  presence  of  God  and  his 
glory.  Nothing  could  be  plainer  than  the  mean- 
ing of  Paul  in  this  place.  If  he  meant  to  teach 
the  doctrine  of  Annihilation  his  language  was 
wholly  superfluous  and  meaningless.  On  the 
orthodox  supposition  his  meaning  is  perfectly 
plain.  (5)  There  are  expressions  in  the  New 
Testament  which,  by  teaching  eternal  punish- 
ment, preclude  the  idea  of  annihilation.  "And 
these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment " 
(Matt,  xxv,  46).  "  And  they  shall  be  tormented 
day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever  "  (Rev.  xx,  10). 
(6)  There  are  no  instances  of  the  use  of  the 
words  in  question  where  the  orthodox  view  is 
not  perfectly  simple  and  intelligible. 

2.  But  it  is  said  in  response  that  in  the  cases 
referred  to,  and  all  others  like  them,  the  words 
<;  death,"  "  destruction,"  etc.,  though  they  in  or- 
dinary use  properly  signify  annihilation,  are  used 


22.4  FUTURE   RETRIBU7ION. 

proleptically.  One  writer,  commenting  on  the 
phrase  "  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,"  says  :  "  We 
believe  .  .  .  that  the  apostle's  statement  means, 
'  Ye  were  [virtually]  dead' — on  your  way  to  death. 
Death  was  there,  though  only  in  its  germ  ;  death 
had  begun  its  work,  but  was  prevented  from 
completing  it.  By  prolepsis  Paul  anticipates  the 
fatal  results  of  total  destruction,  moral  and 
physical,  that  sin  would  have  wrought  in  his 
readers  had  they  not  received  the  Gospel  "  (Pet- 
avel,  Extinction  of  Evil,  p.  175).  In  confirma- 
tion of  this  view  it  is  shown  that  prolepsis  is  a 
figure  of  speech  sometimes  used  in  the  Script- 
ures. Instances  are  :  "  Whom  he  justified,  them 
he  also  glorified"  (Rom.  viii,  30);  "  Death  is 
swallowed  up  in  victory"  (i  Cor.  xv,  54). 

But  we  reply,  while  we  grant  that  prolepsis  is 
a  true  biblical  figure  of  speech,  we  cannot  admit 
the  fact  in  this  case,  (i)  The  hypothesis  is  evi- 
dently devised  not  to  meet  a  necessity  in  the  use 
of  New  Testament  language  (this  certainly,  as 
before  said,  is  intelligible  and  natural  on  the 
orthodox  supposition),  but  to  meet  the  exigency 
of  a  theory  which  cannot  otherwise  maintain  it- 
self. Prolepsis  in  the  Scriptures  we  admit ;  but 
to  affirm  this  of  language  where  there  is  no  other 
necessity  than  the  emergency  of  a  foregone  con- 


DOCTRINE   OF  ANNIHILATION.  225 

elusion  is  not  warrantable.  When  the  advocates 
of  annihilation  can  find  one  clear  instance  where 
the  words  "  death,"  "  lost,"  and  the  like,  cannot 
signify,  naturally  and  properly,  spiritual  degen- 
eracy or  the  moral  ruin  of  the  soul,  or  when 
they  on  other  grounds  than  these  clearly  establish 
their  doctrine,  then  they  may  present  their  hy- 
pothesis of  prolepsis  as  a  demand  of  exegesis  ; 
not  till  then.  And  not  till  then  will  their  doc- 
trine carry  conviction.  (2)  This  meaning  is  not 
the  natural  impression  that  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  conveys  to  an  unprejudiced 
reader.  (3)  It  is  contradicted  by  "4  "  and  "  5  " 
above,  in  which  we  show  that  the  apostle  Paul 
defines  his  use  of  the  word  "  destruction,"  and 
that  Matt,  xxv,  46,  and  Rev.  xx,  10,  expressly 
teach  eternal  suffering.  (4)  If  we  make  the 
\vords  "  death  "  and  "  destruction  "  in  the  cases 
referred  to  signify  a  prolepsis,  we  must  under- 
stand the  word  "  life,"  when  used  with  reference 
to  the  soul,  in  the  same  way.  But  we  have  seen 
that  it  cannot  so  refer  in  some  cases.  When 
Paul  says,  "  Having  promise  of  the  life  that  now 
is,"  he  evidently  does  not  mean  existence,  but 
life  in  its  higher  worth  and  good.  He  does  not 
mean  more  when  he  refers  to  "  that  [life]  which 

is  to  come."     In  this  case  the  metaphorical  use 
15 


226  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

of  "  life  "  is  not  only  perfectly  natural ;  the  sense 
of  life  as  immortality  is  positively  excluded. 

3.  Again,  response  is  made  to  our  objection 
from  Matt,  xxv,  46,  and  Rev.  xx,  10,  as  follows: 
With  regard  to  Rev.  xx,  10,  that  no  confidence 
is  to  be  placed  upon  this  for  the  reason  that  the 
Book  of  Revelation  is  a  book  largely  of  symbol- 
isms, and  theology,  accordingly,  can  find  only 
small  ground  in  it  to  rest  upon  (Petavel,  ut 
supra,  p.  171).  No  less  than  six  different  at- 
tempts are  made  to  avoid  the  manifest  objection 
from  Matt,  xxv,  46.  These  are:  (i)  That  KoXaat^ 
(punishment)  is  not  an  absolutely  certain  reading 
of  the  original  text.  In  proof  of  this  is  cited  the  fact 
that  in  certain  manuscripts  of  the  ancient  Latin 
version  of  Matthew — the  Itala — the  word  "  fire  " 
is  found  instead  of  "punishment, "makingthe  text 
read  :  "  And  these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  fire." 
It  is  assumed,  of  course,  that  "  eternal  fire  "  is  not 
so  strong  an  expression  as  "  eternal  punishment  " 
(White,  Life  in  Christ,  p.  396  ;  after  him  Row, 
Future  Retribution,  p.  268).  (2)  It  is  said  that 
the  word  KOAaaig  itself  suggests  annihilation. 
"  The  etymology  of  the  word  kolasis,  translated 
'  punishment '  in  the  usual  version,  may  lead  us  to 
an  apprehension  of  its  intrinsic  meaning.  Lexi- 
cographers refer  it  to  a  root  signifying  '  to  break 


DOCTRINE   OF  ANNIHILATION.  227 

by  striking,  to  amputate,  to  shorten,  to  dismem- 
ber, to  mutilate  ; '  from  the  said  root  our  word 
iconoclast,  '  breaker,  or  destroyer,  of  images,'  is 
derived.  Kolasis,  therefore,  denotes  punishment 
involving  a  cutting  off,  a  loss."  It  is  said,  in 
harmony  with  this,  that  all  punishment  involves 
loss.  "  A  fine  consists  in  loss  of  money ;  im- 
prisonment, in  loss  of  liberty  ;  death,  in  loss  of 
life"  (Petavel,  Extinction  of  Evil,  p.  53).  (3)  It 
is  said  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is 
eternal  in  its  results,  and  that  nokaois  al&vior  is  to 
be  understood  in  this  sense  after  the  analogy  of 
such  expressions  as  "  eternal  judgment  "  (Heb. 
vi,  2)  and  "eternal  redemption"  (Heb.  ix,  12) 
(Petavel,  pp.  33,  50).  (4)  Again,  it  is  said  that 
pain  is  not  an  essential  part  of  punishment.  "  It 
is  a  mistake  to  think  that  punishment  necessarily 
involves  pain.  ...  If  any  rash  individual  at- 
tempted to  gaze  at  the  sun,  he  would  first  ex- 
perience intense  pain  in  his  eyeballs.  Should  he 
disregard  the  admonitory  voice  of  suffering,  and 
persevere,  the  pain  would  cease,  but  he  would 
have  become  blind.  The  loss  of  sight  would  be 
his  punishment,  and  not  the  temporary  anguish 
that  forewarned  him  of  the  consequences  of  his 
folly."  "As  instances  of  punishment  without  pain, 
we  may  quote  the  English  law  which  condemned 


228  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  suicide  to  an  ignominious  burial  in  the  high- 
way, with  a  stake  driven  through  the  body,  and 
without  Christian  rites ;  also  the  custom  preva- 
lent in  certain  North  American  States  of  render- 
ing criminals  insensible  by  chloroform  before 
their  execution.  Even  without  chloroform  be- 
heading and  hanging  are  far  less  painful  and 
terrible  than  many  so-called  natural  deaths.  If 
the  essence  of  punishment  were  suffering,  fifty 
lashes  of  the  cat-o '-nine-tails  would  be  a  graver 
penalty  than  death  on  the  scaffold,  and  murder- 
ers should  be  made  to  endure  tortures  propor- 
tionate to  the  number  and  atrocity  of  their 
crimes  "  (ibid.,  pp.  56,  57).  (5)  It  is  also  said 
that  the  word  al&vios  does  not  signify  everlasting 
(Row,  Future  Retribution,  pp.  204-218).  (6) 
When  all  of  these  devices  fail,  writers  upon  this 
subject  quite  generally  warn  us  that  we  must  not 
seek  to  build  so  great  a  doctrine  as  that  of 
eternal  suffering  upon  so  slight  a  basis  as  one  or 
two  passages  of  the  divine  word  ;  that  this  is  like 
balancing  "  a  mountain  on  the  point  of  a  needle," 
etc. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  responses,  we  may  say 
that  while  the  Book  of  Revelation  is  confessedly 
a  book  largely  of  symbolisms,  this  does  not  affect 
the  objection  we  urge  from  it  to  the  present 


DOCTR1XE    OF  AXXI HJLATION.  -_'29 

doctrine.  The  verse  to  which  we  refer,  if  it 
means  any  thing,  clearly  involves :  I.)  The  punish- 
ment of  the  devil  after  the  judgment.  2.)  Eter- 
nal punishment.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
phrase  et$ TOV^  al&vag  TOJV  afojvcjv  is  used  to  signify 
an  intensified  idea  of  eternity.  3.)  Suffering  as 
the  essence  of  this  eternal  punishment.  "  Tor- 
ment "  can  by  no  sort  of  exegetical  legerdemain 
possibly  be  made  to  signify  annihilation. 

We  may  consider  the  other  responses  in  their 
order. 

(i)  As  to  the  reading  of  "  fire  "  instead  of 
"  punishment."  Even  Dr.  White  does  not  urge 
this  point  as  at  all  conclusive.  "  We  shall,  how- 
ever, treat  this  passage  on  the  supposition  that 
.  .  .  Matthew  wrote  what  we  find  in  these  ex- 
pressions "  (Life  in  Christ,  p.  396).  It  is  only 
claimed  that  the  reading  "fire"  is  found  in  "the 
two  most  ancient,  and  several  more  modern, 
manuscripts  of  the  Italic  Version."  This  cer- 
tainly can  weigh  nothing  against  the  combined  tes- 
timony of  all  the  other  versions  and  manuscripts. 
Besides,  it  is  easier  to  see  how  the  word  "  fire  " 
could  be  interpolated  in  this  verse  by  some  tran- 
scriber than  the  word  "  punishment  "  (KoAaa^), 
since  "  fire"  (rrvp)  is  used  just  before  in  verse  41. 
The  transcriber  who  made  the  mistake  had  just 


230  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

written  nvp  aiuviov.  To  make  the  mistake  of 
writing  Kokaaif  atomo?  a  few  verses  after  would 
have  been  wholly  unnatural.  But  the  mistake 
of  writing  nvp  alumov  in  the  second  instance,  as 
he  had  just  written  in  the  previous  instance,  was 
wholly  natural  and  easy. 

(2)  The  response  that  all  punishment  involves 
loss,  and  that  this  is  signified  in  the  word  no^aaig. 
We  reply,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  punish- 
ment involves  loss,  but  not  annihilation.  Much 
less  does  it  involve  the  annihilation  of  him  who 
suffers  it.  It  involves  the  loss  of  something  to 
him,  but  not  the  loss  of  himself  in  the  sense  of 
extinction  of  being.  To  suffer  a  fine  is  to  lose 
money,  to  suffer  imprisonment  is  to  lose  liberty, 
to  suffer  death  is  to  lose  life  ;  but  this  is  not  ex- 
tinction in  either  case.  As  to  the  word  KoXaois, 
we  have  already  seen  that  it  is  used  by  the  Uni- 
versalist  to  establish  his  claim.  It  is  used  with 
as  little  plausibility  by  the  Annihilationist. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  word, 
whatever  its  etymology,  was  used  to  signify 
punishment  in  general  without  reference  to  the 
mode  or  result  of  its  infliction.  The  punish- 
ment (KoXao'.g)  of  Andronicus  was  by  death 
(2  Mace,  iv,  38).  The  Jewish  authorities  found 
"  nothing  how  they  might  punish  "  the  apostles 


DOCTRINE   OF  ANNIHILATION.  231 

(Acts  iv,  21).     The  word  never  signified  annihila- 
tion. 

(3)  Eternal  punishment  is  eternal  in  its  effects. 
But  this  view  will  not  explain  Rev.  xx,  10.  Nor 
will  it  satisfy  the  spirit  of  the  passage  in  Mat- 
thew. The  whole  structure  of  this  sentence  is 
well  qualified  to  favor  the  orthodox  view.  "  And 
these  shall  go  away  into  eternal  punishment." 
We  cannot,  except  by  forced  construction,  make 
this  mean  :  "  And  these  shall  be  finally  annihi- 
lated." 1\\e  going  away  into  eternal  punishment 
is  just  such  language  as  might  have  been  used 
by  our  Lord  to  signify  eternal  suffering.  More- 
over, this  is  its  common  impression  upon  an  un- 
prejudiced reader.  Again,  the  Annihilationist 
no  more  than  the  Universalist  can  explain  the 
contrasted  phrases  in  this  verse.  There  is  no 
more  reason,  except  through  the  exigency  of  a 
foregone  conclusion,  to  say  "  eternal  punish- 
ment "  means  the  eternal  result  of  temporal  suf- 
fering than  to  say  "  eternal  life "  means  the 
eternal  result  of  a  temporal  existence.  The  two 
phrases  are  evidently  intended  parallels,  and 
their  unforced  impression  will  forever  witness 
against  both  the  Annihilationist  and  Universalist 
hypotheses.  Further,  the  Annihilationist  him- 
self concedes  that  this  phrase  does  not  mean  the 


232  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

eternal  result  of  a  single  act,  as  in  the  analogous 
cases  cited,  where  "eternal  judgment"  means 
the  eternal  result  of  an  act  of  judgment  and 
"  eternal  redemption"  the  eternal  result  of  the 
atonement;  for  he  teaches  a  gradual  extinction 
of  the  lost.  They  go  away  into  a  punishment 
that  will  ultimately  be  annihilation.  Still  further, 
in  the  analogous  cases  the  context  compels  the 
secondary  construction  ;  not  so  in  this.  Lastly, 
the  Jews  of  Christ's  time,  who,  as  we  have  seen, 
taught  eternal  suffering  for  some,  and  who  also 
taught  annihilation  for  others,  did  not  use  lan- 
guage like  that  in  question  to  signify  the  second 
doctrine.  In  regard  to  sinners  of  Israel  the 
School  of  Hillel  taught  "  that  they  are  tormented 
in  Gehenna  for  twelve  months,  after  which  their 
bodies  and  souls  are  burnt  up  and  scattered  as 
dust  under  the  feet  of  the  righteous  ;  but  it  sig- 
nificantly excepts  from  this  number  certain  classes 
of  transgressors '  who  go  down  to  Gehinnom  and 
are  punished  there  to  ages  of  ages'  '  (Eders- 
heim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  vol. 
ii,  p.  792).  In  view  of  this  teaching,  and  the  lan- 
guage used  to  convey  it,  there  is  no  way  of  mis- 
taking the  language  of  our  Lord. 

(4)  The  response  which  affirms  that  pain  is  not 
an  essential  part  of  punishment.     This,  we  reply. 


DOCTRINE   OF  AXXIHILAI'IOX.  233 

is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  There  is  no  punish- 
ment without  pain  of  some  kind.  To  be  sure  it 
need  not  be  physical  pain ;  this,  indeed,  is  not 
always  the  severest.  The  supposed  cases  of 
painless  punishment  referred  to  by  Dr.  Petavel 
are  not  apt  instances.  Is  there  no  pain  to  a  man 
who  by  a  rash  act  destroys  his  eyesight  except 
that  which  is  experienced  in  the  act  ?  Will  he 
not  suffer  from  the  loss  of  his  eyesight  as  long 
as  he  lives  ?  As  to  the  English  law  that  con- 
demned the  suicide  to  an  ignominious  burial  in 
the  highway  with  a  stake  driven  through  his 
body,  this  can  only  be  said  to  be  punishment  to 
the  offender  in  an  accommodated  sense.  It  was 
an  example  to  others,  and  if  properly  a  punish- 
ment to  the  guilty  one,  only  so  in  its  anticipation. 
In  this  latter  sense  it  was  punishment  tc  the  sui- 
cide, and  only  as  such  could  it  have  any  deterrent 
effect  upon  others.  The  pain  experienced  in  the 
thought  of  this  ignominious  burial  was  what  gave 
it  its  deterring  force,  if  it  had  any,  and  what 
properly  constituted  its  penalty.  Again,  is  there 
no  pain  in  being  hung  even  if  the  criminal  is  ren- 
dered insensible  by  an  anaesthetic  ?  Is  there  not 
pain  in  the  thought  of  dying  the  felon's  death  ? 
And  if  there  is  greater  suffering  in  the  lash  of  the 
cat-o'-nine-tails  than  in  death  on  the  scaffold. 


234  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

and  the  murderer  deserves  the  worst  form  of 
punishment  of  the  two,  why,  in  the  name  of  com- 
mon-sense, not  give  him  the  punishment  of  the 
former  and  save  him  from  the  latter  ?  It  will  take 
Dr.  Petavel  a  long  time  to  persuade  the  world  that 
there  is  more  suffering  in  the  first  than  in  the  last. 
We  do  not  teach  that  there  is  conscious  eternal 
suffering  in  all  punishment,  but  simply  that  suffer- 
ing is  an  essential  element  of  all  punishment ;  and 
that  "  eternal  punishment  "  involves  eternal  suf- 
fering. 

(5)  The  Annihilationist  as  well  as  the  Univer- 
salist  seeks  to  prove  that  aluvioq  does  not  signify 
"everlasting."      Enough,  however,  has  been  said 
upon  this  point    in  considering  the  doctrine  of 
the  latter. 

(6)  As  to   building  the  doctrine  of  future  suf- 
fering upon  a  few  passages  of  Scripture.     In  this 
objection  the  Annihilationist  practically  surren- 
ders his  doctrine.     It  is  a  virtual  confession  that 
a  few  passages   of  Scripture  teach  the  orthodox 
view.     Again,  how  many  times  was  it  necessary 
for  our  Lord  to  say,  "  And  these  shall  go  away 
into  eternal    punishment,"  in    order  to  convince 
these  writers  that  he  meant  to  teach  this  doctrine  ? 
A    thousand    times   would   not     more    perfectly 
teach  it  than  this  once,  although  repetition  em- 


DOCTKINE    OF  AXXIII ILATIOX.  -Jo5 

phasizes.  But  this  is  accomplished  in  the  use  of 
other  language,  as  that  which  the  Annihilation- 
ist  himself  urges,  and  by  the  whole  implication 
of  the  gospels.  We  have  tried  to  set  forth  the 
full  impression  of  this  doctrine  in  the  first  chapter. 
4.  The  Annihilationist  seeks  to  augment  his 
argument  based  upon  the  terms  "  death  "  "  de- 
struction," and  the  like,  by  such  Scriptures  as 
the  following:  "  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me,  he  is 
cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is  withered  ;  and  they 
gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  the  fire,  and 
they  are  burned  "  (John  xv,  6).  "  And  if  thy 
hand  cause  thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off:  it  is  good 
for  thee  to  enter  into  life  maimed,  rather  than 
having  thy  two  hands  to  go  into  hell,  into  the 
unquenchable  fire  "  (Mark  ix,  43).  It  is  said 
fire  "  symbolizes  total  destruction."  It  is  also 
the  agent  of  the  destruction  of  the  wicked.  "  Fire 
changes  the  diamond,  the  hardest  of  all  sub- 
stances, into  a  subtle  vapor,  dissolves  granite  and 
converts  it  into  lava.  .  .  .  No  sort  of  life  is  com- 
patible with  fire  ;  and,  according  to  the  Bible, 
destruction  by  fire  is  the  doom  of  the  ungodly  ; 
*  for,  behold,  the  day  cometh,  that  shall  burn  as 
an  oven  ;  and  all  the  proud,  yea,  and  all  that  do 
wickedly,  shall  be  stubble :  and  the  day  that 
cometh  shall  burn  them  up,  saith  the  Lord  of 


236  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

hosts,  that  it  shall  leave  them  neither  root  nor 
branch  '  "  (Petavel,  p.  44). 

But  it  will  not  be  claimed  that  these  passages 
can  teach  the  doctrine  if  those  already  considered 
do  not.  Besides,  there  is  no  more  reason,  as 
already  seen  in  a  previous  chapter,  for  affirming 
that  the  "  fire  "  threatened  the  sinner  is  a  literal 
fire  than  that  the  "  worm  "  and  the  "  outer  dark- 
ness "  are  literal — incompatible  representations. 
All  of  these  are  but  sensible  and  figurative  rep- 
resentations used  to  signify  the  character  of 
future  suffering. 

5.  The  Annihilationist  seeks  to  build  his  doc- 
trine from  the  positive  side  upon  the  word  "  life  " 
as  used  in  the  New  Testament.  Life,  he  says,  is 
immortality,  as  "  death  "  is  extinction.  This  life 
is  in  Christ.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  quote 
passages  in  which  this  word  is  found,  as  the 
reader  by  consulting  his  concordance  can  readily 
find  access  to  many  of  them.  Nor  will  it  be  nec- 
essary to  respond  to  the  argument  based  upon 
them  at  any  great  length,  since  the  interpretation 
of  this  word  stands  or  falls  with  what  has  already 
been  said  concerning  "  death  "  and  its  kindred 
words.  We  simply  desire  to  reiterate  one  or  two 
remarks  before  made.  One  of  these  is  that  there 
is  no  instance  of  the  use  of  the  word  "  life  "  in 


DOCTRINE    OF  ANNIHILATION.  237 

the  New  Testament  that  is  not  compatible  with 
the  orthodox  interpretation.  The  other  is  that 
the  word  is  so  used  in  some  instances  as  positively 
to  exclude  the  connotation  of  immortality.  Wo 
quote  other  instances  than  those  given.  "  And 
he  said  unto  them,  Take  heed,  and  keep  your- 
selves from  all  covetousness  :  for  a  man's  life  con- 
sisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  which 
he  possesseth  "  (Luke  xii,  15).  "  Jesus  therefore 
said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and 
drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves. 
He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 
hath  eternal  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the 
last  day.  For  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my 
blood  is  drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh 
and  drinketh  my  blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in 
him  "  (John  vi,  53-56).  What  more  reason  to 
interpret  "  life  "  here  literally  than  to  interpret 
"  flesh  "  and  "  blood,"  as  do  the  Romanists,  in 
the  same  way?  "Again  therefore  Jesus  spake 
unto  them,  saying,  I  am  the  light  of  the  world  : 
he  that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  darkness, 
but  shall  have  the  light  of  life  "  (John  viii,  12). 
If  we  cannot  interpret  "  light  "  and  "  darkness  " 
literally,  why  should  we  interpret  "life"  so  in 
this  verse  ?  "  The  thief  cometh  not,  but  that  he 


238  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

may  steal,  and  kill,  and  destroy  :  I  come  that 
they  may  have  life,  and  may  have  it  abundantly  " 
(John  x,  10).  Suppose  we  understand  the  word 
"  life  "  here  to  signify  immortality,  what  will  be 
the  result  upon  the  sense  of  this  passage  ?  It 
would  then  read  :  "  I  come  that  they  may  have 
immortality,  and  may  have  it  abundantly."  Will 
the  literalist  tell  us  what  an  abundance  of  immor- 
tality is  ?  By  his  interpretation  the  sense  of  the 
passage  is  destroyed.  There  are  degrees  of 
spiritual  life  and  righteousness  in  Christ,  but  not 
degrees  of  immortality. 

6.  Argument   is  attempted  by  the  Annihila- 
tionist   from   considerations   of  the    divine   love 
and  justice.     These  coincide  perfectly  with  the 
same    as    presented    by    the    Universalist,    and 
have  been  sufficiently  considered  in  refuting  the 
doctrine  of  the  latter. 

7.  It  is  said  that   native  and  inamissible  im- 
mortality is  not  revealed  in  the  Bible  ;    that   the 
doctrine  is  borrowed  from  Plato  and  not  derived 
from   the   Scriptures.     It   is    said  further  to  be 
positively  opposed  by  the  Scriptures.     The  two 
chief  passages  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  in 
proof  are  Gen.  iii,  4,  22-24,  an^  Rom.  ii,  7.     It  is 
said,  according  to  the  former  passage  immortality 
was   conditioned   upon   the  tree  of  life.     As  to 


DOCTRINE   OF  ANNIHILATION.  239 

the  second,  it  is  said  that  God  "  only  hath  im- 
mortality "  (i  Tim.  vi,  1 6),  and  that  we  attain  it 
by  seeking  it.  Again,  it  is  said  that  "  enforced  " 
immortality  is  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  "  uni- 
versal analogy."  "  All  about  us  in  the  world  we 
behold  a  struggle  for  existence  and  the  survival 
of  the  fittest.  Be  transformed  in  order  to  live  ! 
Such  is  the  great  law  of  nature.  Such  is  also 
the  great  law  of  the  Gospel.  What,  from  this 
point  of  view,  shall  befall  those  free  beings  who 
resist  the  required  transformation  and,  in  lieu  of 
progressing,  recoil  voluntarily  and  obstinately 
toward  animalism  ?  Evolutionary  science  itself 
exhibits  examples  of  retrogression  in  nature, 
degenerations,  backward  progress.  Without 
culture  superior  types  revert  to  the  primitive 
type.  The  conscious  being  may  revert  toward 
the  unconscious,  and  in  fact  the  sleep  which 
takes  possession  of  each  of  us  every  day  is 
like  the  daily  menace  of  this  unconsciousness 
from  which  we  have  scarcely  emerged  "  {Extinc- 
tion of  Evil,  p.  96).  We  are  told,  still  further, 
that  we  are  to  distinguish,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  between  the  soul's  survival  of  death 
and  the  resurrection  and  its  inamissible  im- 
mortality. "  I  have  also  drawn  the  reader's  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  two  questions  which 


240  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

ought  to  be  kept  entirely  distinct  have  been 
habitually  confounded  together  in  this  con- 
troversy. One  of  these  is,  Have  we  reason  for 
believing  that  man  will  survive  the  dissolution 
of  the  body?  the  other,  Will  that  survival  be  of 
endless  duration?"  (C.  A.  Row,  Future  Retri- 
bution, p.  408). 

To  all  of  this  we  respond  in  order. 

(i)  Immortality  not  revealed.  To  this  we 
reply,  not  only  is  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
every-vvhere  assumed  in  the  Scriptures,  as  is  the 
existence  of  God,  but  it  is  also  involved  in  the 
fact  of  eternal  punishment  as  already  proved  by 
the  Scriptures.  Again,  it  is  involved  in  Christ's 
conversation  with  the  Sadducees  recorded  in 
Matt,  xxii,  23-33  !  Mark  xii,  18-27  ;  Luke  xx, 
27-40  :  "  And  there  came  to  him  certain  of  the 
Sadducees,  they  which  say  that  there  is  no  resur- 
rection ;  and  they  asked  him,  saying,  Master, 
Moses  wrote  unto  us,  that  if  a  man's  brother  die, 
having  a  wife,  and  he  be  childless,  his  brother 
should  take  the  wife,  and  raise  up  seed  unto  his 
brother.  There  were  therefore  seven  brethren  : 
and  the  first  took  a  wife,  and  died  childless  ; 
and  the  second  ;  and  the  third  took  her ;  and 
likewise  the  seven  also  left  no  children,  and  died. 
Afterward  the  woman  also  died.  In  the  resur- 


DOCTRINE    OF  ANNIHILATION.  241 

rection  therefore  whose  wife  of  them  shall  she 
be  ?  for  the  seven  had  her  to  wife.  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  The  sons  of  this  world  marry, 
and  are  given  in  marriage  :  but  they  that  are  ac- 
counted worthy  to  attain  to  that  world,  and  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither  marry,  nor 
are  given  in  marriage:  for  neither  can  they  die 
any  more  :  for  they  are  equal  unto  the  angels  ; 
and  are  sons  of  God,  being  sons  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. But  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even  Moses 
showed,  in  the  place  concerning  the  Bush,  when 
he  calleth  the  Lord  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob.  Now 
he  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the  living  : 
for  all  live  unto  him.  And  certain  of  the  scribes 
answering  said,  Master,  thou  hast  well  said. 
For  they  durst  not  any  more  ask  him  any  ques- 
tion." Now  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  Jesus  in  this  conversation  took  the  side  of 
the  Pharisees,  who  believed  in  the  resurrection 
and  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  against  the 
Sadducees,  who  believed  in  neither  (Acts  xxiii, 
8).  It  is  a  pure  assumption  to  affirm,  as  does 
Dr.  White,  that  Christ  contradicted  the  doctrine 
of  the  Pharisees  in  this  matter  as  well  as  that  of 
the  Sadducees.  The  well-known  positions  of 

these  two  parties  among  the  Jews  (and  there  was 
10 


242  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

no  middle  party)  makes  it  certain  that  Christ's 
unqualified  approbation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees  in  this  conversation  with  the  Saddu- 
cees  implies  his  approval  of  the  former's  doctrine 
of  the  native  immortality  of  the  soul.  If  Jesus 
had  meant  to  teach  a  doctrine  neither  of  the 
Pharisees  nor  Sadducees,  but  one  midway  be- 
tween the  two,  he  certainly  would  not  have  used 
the  language  that  he  did  without  guarding  it 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  former.  The  fact 
furnishes  as  clear  ground  for  the  inference  that 
Jesus  assumed  the  native  immortality  of  the  soul 
as  should  be  desired. 

(2)  The  Scriptures  opposed  to  native  immor- 
tality. As  to  the  passage  in  Genesis  urged  to 
prove  this,  we  reply  that  it  can  be  of  force  only 
on  the  assumption  that  "  to  die"  meant  to  be 
annihilated.  But  this  would  be  begging  the 
whole  question,  for  it  is  just  this  point  that  is  in 
dispute.  There  certainly  is  no  more  difficulty  in 
supposing  the  tree  of  life  to  be  able  to  conserve 
physical  and  spiritual  life  than  in  supposing  it 
able  to  impart  immortality.  In  either  case  it 
could  only  have  possessed  this  power  sacra- 
mentally ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  narrative 
itself  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  its  office  was  to 
impart  immortality  except  we  assume  that  man 


DOCTRINE    OF  ANNIHILATION.  243 

was  created  mortal — the  very  thing,  as  just  said, 
in  question.  Besides,  when  it  is  remembered,  as 
already  remarked,  that  the  immortality  of  the 
soul  is  every-where  assumed  in  the  Scriptures — 
Old  and  New — it  becomes  impossible  to  inter- 
pret the  narrative  in  question  according  to  the 
peculiar  view  of  the  doctrine  of  conditional  im- 
mortality. As  to  the  passage  in  Romans  we 
need  only  say  that  it  is  to  be  understood  to  sig- 
nify a  blessed  immortality.*  Analogous  to  this 
use  of  the  word  afydapaia  (the  word  used  in  this 
place,  and  translated  "  incorruption  "  in  the  Re- 
vised Version)  is  its  use  in  the  Septuagint.  (See 
Greek-English  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament, 
Thayer.)  Besides,  all  the  other  facts  in  the  case 
necessitate  this  interpretation,  and  no  violence 
is  thereby  done  to  the  passage. 

(3)  The  argument  from  analogy.  We  have 
little  to  do  with  this  argument  except  to  refer  to 
it,  for  the  reason  that  a  skillful  writer  can  find 
proof  from  the  so-called  analogy  of  nature  for 
any  doctrine  that  he  undertakes  to  prove.  We 

*  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Greek  words  afydapaia  (the 
word  in  Rom.  ii,  7,  and  translated  "  incorruptiou  "  by  our  re- 
visers) and  adavaaia  (translated  alike  in  the  Authorized  and  Re- 
vised Versions  by  our  word  "  immortality  ")  are  used  synony- 
mously in  the  New  Testament.  Examine  I  Cor.  xv,  53,  54  ;  I 
Tim.  i,  17. 


944  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

are  abundantly  persuaded  that  analogy  can 
serve  safely  only  two  functions,  namely,  that  of 
illustration,  and  to  remove  objections  to  doctrines 
involved  in  difficulties.  Even  Butler,  the  great 
master  in  this  field,  strikes  us  as  strong  only 
where  he  seeks  to  remove  objections  to  the 
doctrines  he  considers.* 

(4)  Survival  does  not  involve  immortality 
according  to  the  Scriptures.  But  we  assert 
directly  the  contrary.  The  Scriptures  nowhere 
make  the  distinction  between  survival  and  im- 
mortality. This  is  a  distinction  devised,  like  the 
doctrine  of  prolepsis,  to  meet  the  peculiar 
emergency  of  this  doctrine.  Its  advocates  had 
need  of  it,  and  they  created  it.  This  will  be 
evident  when  it  is  remembered  that  no  such 
distinction  was  ever  made  outside  of  the  Script- 
ures. Both  in  ancient  and  modern  times  it  has 
been  customary  to  argue  for  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  as  if  this  were  involved  in  the  survival 
of  the  soul  in  the  dissolution  of  the  body.  Un- 
less it  can  be  shown  that  the  Bible  explicitly  de- 
parts from  this  custom  the  alleged  distinction 

*  An  example  of  both  the  weakness  and  the  strength  of  the 
argument  from  analogy  has  lately  appeared  in  Drummond's 
Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World — a  book  weak  in  its 
fundamental  principle  (the  identity  of  natural  and  spiritual  law), 
but  strong  in  its  apt  and  beautiful  illustrations. 


DOCTKINE   OF  ANNIHILATION.  245 

will    fall    to    the    ground.     But    this    cannot  be 
shown. 

From  purely  exegetical  considerations,  there- 
fore, we  are  compelled  to  reject  the  present 
doctrine  ;  and  simply  say,  in  conclusion,  that  the 
convictions  of  men  in  all  ages  and  parts  of  the 
world  concerning  the  soul's  native  immortality 
are  not  lightly  to  be  set  aside.  We  do  not  seek 
to  base  our  doctrine  upon  this  primarily  ;  nor 
upon  metaphysical  considerations  of  the  soul's 
immortality.  These  could  weigh  nothing  in  our 
view  against  the  clear  teaching  of  the  Scriptures 
to  the  contrary  ;  but  finding  the  doctrine  assumed 
every-where  in  the  Scriptures,  we  may  find  con- 
firmation of  it  in  these  extra-biblical  facts  and 
arguments.  We  see  no  reason,  moreover,  in  the 
metaphysical  nature  of  the  soul  (this  being 
granted)  to  prevent  its  annihilation.  He  who 
created  it  is  able  to  destroy  it  ;  but  this  also  is 
not  revealed,  but  the  contrary. 


"  For  the  wrath  [justice]  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven 
against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men,  who  hold 
the  truth  in  unrighteousness  " — Rom.  i,  18. 

"Just  and  true  are  thy  ways,  thou  King  of  saints." — Rev. 
xv,  3. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Reason  or  Law  of  Necessity  in  Future  Punishment. 

WE  have  now  sufficiently  considered  the  fact 
and  nature  of  future  punishment.  One 
other  task  yet  remains,  namely,  to  investigate 
the  reason  or  law  of  necessity  in  the  punishment 
of  the  lost.  Why  must  the  wicked  be  punished 
forever  ? 

This  is,  perhaps,  the  least  important  part  of  our 
subject,  and  yet  it  is  not  without  interest,  and  its 
consideration  will  not  be  without  value.  Several 
chapters  might  be  devoted  to  its  discussion,  but 
we  prefer  to  embrace  it  within  the  compass  of  a 
single  chapter. 

Any  proposed  solution  of  the  problem  that 
deserves  so  much  as  a  hearing  must  begin  by 
taking  for  granted  some  real  necessity ;  and  not, 
as  in  Calvinism,  by  making  the  fact  of  punish- 
ment the  result  of  divine  caprice.  Excluding  the 
answer  of  Calvinism,  and  postulating  some  deep 
necessity,  we  inquire  wherein  that  necessity  lies. 

I.  Is  it  in  fixation  of  character?  This  is  a 
well-known  doctrine,  and  is  found  in  much  of 


248  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

the  current  teaching  upon  the  subject.  Its  fun- 
damental principle  is  that  character,  by  the  con- 
stant and  long  indulgence  of  sin,  becomes  so 
confirmed  in  badness  that  it  bears  in  itself  its  own 
unalterable,  and  therefore  necessary,  doom.  Thus 
Mr.  Joseph  Cook  says: 

''  I  did  not  make  the  universe  ;  but  the  universe 
is  so  made  that  whoever  sins  against  light  draws 
blood  on  the  spiritual  retina  of  the  moral  eyes. 
It  is  the  most  mysterious  thing  in  the  penalties 
the  soul  is  called  on  to  endure,  that  sinning 
against  light  blinds  us  to  the  very  illumination 
needed  to  rectify  our  condition.  That  is  a  fact 
of  science ;  that  is  a  terrific  philosophical  truth 
which  cannot  be  declaimed  out  of  sight ;  that  is 
a  tremendous,  indisputable  circumstance  in  nat- 
ural law ;  and  on  it  I  plant  myself  when  I  say 
reason  shows  that  resisting  the  light  that  comes 
in  death  may  fix  character  and  so  end  proba- 
tion "  (Boston  Monday  Lectures :  Occident,  p.  59). 

Of  course,  whatever  ends  probation  is  itself 
the  law  of  necessity  in  eternal  punishment.  So 
Mr.  Cook  would  have  us  understand  ;  and  on  the 
ground  of  the  fixed  character  would  he  exclude 
repentance  after  death,  and  justify  to  human  rea- 
son the  compatibility  of  eternal  punishment  with 
divine  benevolence. 


REASON    OK   LAW   OF  PUNISHMENT.       249 

Certainly  it  would  follow,  if  the  doctrine  were 
true,  that  there  could  be  no  repentance  after 
death,  and  no  blame  could  be  cast  upon  divine 
goodness  ;  but,  however  plausible  and  convenient 
the  theory  may  appear,  when  tested  by  the  Script- 
ures it  is  found  to  be  untenable.  Several  facts 
will  demonstrate  its  untenableness: 

(l)  All  character  is  fixed  without  helping  grace. 
This  fact  will  not  be  disputed  by  any  one  ;  but  it 
is  lost  sight  of  in  its  bearing  upon  the  doctrine 
under  discussion.  The  theory  of  Mr.  Cook  tacitly 
assumes  that  no  character  is  fixed  but  that  which 
becomes  so  from  long  and  habitual  sinning; 
whereas,  as  just  said,  all  character  is  unalterably 
fixed  without  the  intervention  of  divine  grace. 
Under  the  economy  of  redemption  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world,  so  that  no  character  is 
left  to  its  naturally  fixed  condition  of  moral  im- 
potency  in  the  beginning  ;  but  we  must  carefully 
remember  that  the  reason  of  this  moral  or  spir- 
itual strength  is  in  the  presence  and  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  If  for  any  reason  the  Holy  Spirit 
should  take  his  flight  from  us,  character  would 
be  forever  sealed  in  ruin  from  our  consequent 
weakness  or  inability  to  reform. 

It  is  true,  as  Mr.  Cook  maintains,  that  charac- 


250  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

ter  under  sin  becomes  less  and  less  susceptible 
to  appeals  of  religious  truth ;  "  that  sinning 
against  light  blinds  us  to  the  very  illumination 
needed  to  rectify  our  condition  :"  but  why?  The 
answer  of  the  fixation  doctrine  is,  Because  char- 
acter by  sin  becomes  more  and  more  hardened, 
and,  therefore,  less  and  less  susceptible  to  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  alone  can  ap- 
ply truth  to  the  hearts  of  men  in  conviction  and 
salvation.  Thus  Mr.  Cook  again  : 

"  I  believe  that  light  is  kept  before  the  lost.  I 
believe  that  God  will  be  all  in  all  both  in  the 
saved  and  in  the  lost,  and  that  the  fact  that  God 
is  all  in  all  in  a  lost  soul  is  the  chief  source  of 
its  misery"  (Occident,  p.  67). 

This  is  the  natural  conclusion  of  the  doctrine 
as  applied  in  its  outcome  to  the  future  life.  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  ever  present,  but  finds  its  inability 
for  good  in  the  moral  steadfastness  of  the  lost 
soul.  It  ever  strives  to  save,  but  is  debarred  by 
the  soul's  fixedness  in  evil. 

How  obviously  contradictory  is  this  to  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  signify  the  with- 
drawal of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  account  of  sin  and 
imply  the  moral  ruin  of  the  soul  from  that  with- 
drawal? "  Cast  me  not  away  from  thy  presence  ; 
and  take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me  "  (Psa. 


REASON   OA1   LAW  OF  PUNISHMENT.       251 

li,  11).  "And  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of 
God,  in  whom  ye  were  sealed  unto  the  day  of 
redemption  "  (Eph.  iv,  30).  Here  the  danger 
is  not  that  the  character  will  become  so  fixed 
by  sin  that  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  influence  it, 
but  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will  cease  its  wooing 
and  leave  the  soul  to  its  natural  state  of  ruin. 
As  sinning  tends  to  drive  the  Holy  Spirit  from 
us,  we  infer  that  in  proportion  as  its  influence 
grows  less  on  account  of  our  sins  are  we  less 
and  less  susceptible  to  appeals  of  religious  truth. 
As  we  become  hardened  to  religious  impressions 
on  account  of  the  Spirit's  gradual  but  sure  with- 
drawal on  account  of  sin,  it  follows  that  when 
the  Spirit  ceases  to  operate  upon  the  heart 
there  is  then  no  further  hope  of  moral  or  relig- 
ious good.  Left  alone,  man's  character  is  forever 
sealed  in  ruin.  Why  the  Holy  Spirit  finally 
ceases  to  strive  with  rebellious  man  will  be  seen 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  theory  which  gives 
the  true  account  of  the  necessity  in  eternal  pun- 
ishment. Why  the  Holy  Spirit  gradually  leaves 
the  sinful  in  this  life  may  be  accounted  for  on 
the  ground  of  his  willful  rejection.  The  Holy 
Ghost  cannot  trespass  upon  free  moral  agency. 
It  is  an  awful  fact,  significant  of  man's  greatness 
in  the  scale  of  being,  that  at  the  bidding  of  a 


252  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

human  will  the  Holy  Spirit  must  retire.  He  can- 
not, as  well  as  will  not,  stay  unwelcomed  and 
forbidden. 

What  has  been  said  at  this  point  may  be 
summed  up  for  the  sake  of  clearness  and  em- 
phasis as  follows  :  All  character  is  unalterably 
fixed  without  prevenient  grace  ;  the  light  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which  lighteth  every  man  that  com- 
eth  into  the  world,  makes  moral  and  spiritual 
reform  possible  ;  and  the  final  withdrawal  of  that 
Spirit  on  account  of  sin  forever  fixes  lost  char- 
acter because  left  to  its  natural  condition  of 
moral  and  spiritual  helplessness.  The  fixation 
doctrine,  which  assumes  the  reverse  of  this,  name- 
ly, that  the  Spirit  is  ever  present,  but  debarred 
from  helpfulness  on  account  of  fixed  character, 
cannot,  therefore,  be  true. 

(2)  Again,  it  is  pure  assumption  to  affirm  that 
character  can  become  so  fixed  as  to  be  beyond 
the  possibility  of  grace  to  reclaim,  all  other  con- 
siderations aside.  There  is  not  a  passage  in  the 
Bible  which  teaches  such  a  doctrine  or  warrants 
such  a  conclusion.  There  are  passages  that  are 
quoted  as  proof-texts,  but  they  by  no  means 
prove  it.  A  favorite  passage  is  Gal.  vi,  7,  8  : 
"  Be  not  deceived  ;  God  is  not  mocked :  for 
whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap. 


XEASON   OK   LAW   OF  PUNISHMENT.       253 

For  he  that  soweth  unto  his  own  flesh  shall  of  the 
flesh  reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  soweth  unto 
the  Spirit  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  eternal  life." 
That  this  passage  teaches  certain  natural  con- 
sequences to  a  life  of  sin  and  others  to  a  life  of 
righteousness,  which  it  names,  is  not  in  the  least 
disputed  ;  but  it  does  not,  therefore,  teach  that 
in  steadfastness  of  character  is  to  be  found  the 
reason  or  law  of  eternal  punishment.  The  con- 
clusion goes  beyond  the  teaching  of  the  text,  or 
any  warrantable  inference  from  it.  The  error  in 
the  interpretation  here,  and  in  the  inference  as 
to  the  future  life  that  is  drawn  from  it,  as  in 
that  of  other  passages  of  similar  import,  is  in  the 
failure  to  make  the  proper  distinction  between 
fixity  of  character  as  the  inevitable  result  of 
a  sinful  life  whose  probation  is  ended,  where  by 
implication  and  in  fact  there  is  no  reclaiming 
or  restraining  grace,  and  fixity  of  character  as 
the  reason  or  law  of  eternal  punishment.  As  all 
character  without  prevenient  grace  is  unaltera- 
bly fixed,  so  when  man  persistently  refuses  the 
assistance  of  divine  grace  his  character  becomes 
more  and  more  confirmed  in  badness.  And  so 
it  is  that  all  lost  character  is  eternally  fixed. 
This  much  of  the  theory  is  fundamentally  true ; 
but  we  believe  it  is  true,  not  because  grace  has 


254  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

not  the  power  to  rescue,  but  because  a  limita- 
tion, outside  of  the  lost  soul,  is  placed  upon  the 
working  of  that  grace.  What  that  limitation  is 
will  be  seen  presently.  In  the  meantime  let  it 
be  borne  in  mind  that  fixity  of  character  as  a 
result  of  being  left  alone  and  as  a  law  explaining 
the  necessity  of  eternal  punishment  are  radically 
different. 

(3)  Another  fatal  objection  to  the  theory  is 
that  it  necessarily  implies,  and  therefore  assumes, 
if  it  does  not  assert,  that  the  relations  and  con- 
ditions of  the  future  life  of  the  lost  are  substan- 
tially the  same  as  those  of  this  life.  But  there 
is  one  important  difference  which  must  never  be 
forgotten,  namely,  the  momentary  gratification 
from  sin  in  this  life  cannot  be  received  there. 
This  inference  is  in  harmony  with  all  Scripture 
teaching  with  regard  to  the  lost.  We  must  not 
forget  that  men  in  this  life  would  not  risk  and 
suffer  the  consequences  of  sin  were  it  not  for  the 
momentary  pleasure  of  present  indulgence.  It 
is  inconceivable,  therefore,  that  a  free  will  can 
attain  such  an  "  ultimate  steadfastness  and  un- 
changing bent "  that  it  will  eternally  choose 
the  "torment"  of  hell  in  the  absence  of  pleas- 
urable gratification.  We  might  conceive  how 
in  a  life  such  as  this,  as  long,  at  least,  as  the  sen- 


REASON   OR   LAW  OF  PUNISHMENT.       255 

sations  of  pleasure  were  possible,  a  corrupted 
heart  and  perverted  will  might  choose  the  evil ; 
but  not  in  a  life  such  as  the  future  of  the  wicked 
will  be,  where  all  the  conditions  and  opportuni- 
ties of  sinful  pleasure  are  past.  Conceivably, 
will  not  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  goad 
them,  at  least,  to  a  desire  of  deliverance  ?  If, 
like  the  rich  man,  they  be  driven  by  the  burn- 
ings to  call  for  a  drop  of  cold  water,  who  will  say 
that  the  Spirit  could  not  send  that  drop,  and 
even  take  them  out  of  the  flame,  were  there  no 
barrier  outside  of  themselves?  Might  not  that 
Spirit  that  changes  the  heart  of  stone  to  a  heart 
of  flesh  in  this  life  even  change  the  hardened 
character  of  the  lost  were  there  no  other  law 
that  places  a  limit  upon  its  operation  ?  The 
"  great  gulf  fixed  "  is  betzveen  the  saved  and  the 
lost,  and  not  in  the  lost. 

(4)  Still  further,  and  of  great  and  conclusive 
significance,  is  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  every- 
where represent  eternal  punishment  as  ajudicially 
inflicted  penalty,  and  not  as  the  natural  result  of 
a  sinful  life.  All  those  passages  which  speak  of 
the  wrath  of  God  as  revealed  from  heaven  against 
all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men,  and, 

o  *-2 

as  well,  those  which  describe  the  final  judg- 
ment, proclaim  the  truth  and  validity  of  this 


256  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

objection.  Moreover,  all  the  terms  used  with 
reference  to  the  matter  are  of  a  judicial  nature. 
"  Judge,"  "judgment,"  "punishment,"  are  famil- 
iar scriptural  examples.  Christ,  in  Matt,  xxv, 
33,  is  represented  as  a  judge  pronouncing  judi- 
cial sentence  upon  the  good  and  the  bad  for  acts 
in  life,  and  not  as  one  declaring  to  men  the  nat- 
ural results  of  their  earthly  conduct.  If  the  doc- 
trine of  fixity  of  character  were  true,  we  might 
expect  to  find  in  the  Bible  no  threatened  pen- 
alties, but  only  warning  as  to  natural  conse- 
quences. It  should  be  observed  that  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  has  never  forgiveness. 
Christ  does  not  say  :  "  But  he  that  shall  blas- 
pheme against  the  Holy  Ghost  will  attain  final 
permanence  of  character  that  can  never  be 
changed,"  or  any  thing  like  it;  and  any  inter- 
pretation that  reads  it  so  forces  into  the  Saviour's 
words,  not  only  a  meaning  that  they  do  not 
contain,  but  one  that  is  contradictory  to  their 
judicial  sense. 

(5)  Lastly,  it  may  be  asked,  if  this  doctrine  be 
true,  how  account  for  an  atonement  in  any  true 
sense  of  atonement,  as  a  plan  to  deliver  from 
the  eternal  penalties  of  sin  ?  If  fixation  of  char- 
acter is  the  only  bar  to  final  restoration,  then 
what  need  of  an  atonement  for  forgiveness  ?  A 


KEASON   OR   LAW  OF  PUNISHMENT.       257 

moral  influence  atonement  is,  on  supposition  of 
this  doctrine,  the  only  atonement  needed ;  for, 
clearly,  all  that  men  need  is  remedy,  not  for- 
giveness ;  unless  we  assume  that  forgiveness 
through  the  atonement  is  of  sins  with  only  tem- 
poral guilt.  Clearly,  the  atonement  that  makes 
possible  the  remission  of  eternal  guilt  teaches 
that  there  is  a  barrier  other  than  fixation  of 
character  that  precludes  the  restoration  of  the 
lost,  who  have  rejected  that  atonement,  to  holi- 
ness and  heaven. 

The  nature  of  eternal  punishment  is  not  under 
consideration  ;  yet  it  should  be  said  that  possibly 
this  is  to  be  understood  as  being  in  the  burnings 
of  an  unalterably  fixed  evil  character;  which  fixity 
of  character,  as  explained,  is  the  result  of  being  left 
alone  by  divine  grace.  Divine  justice  may  judi- 
cially surrender  a  lost  soul  to  the  eternal  gnawings 
and  burnings  of  a  bad  character.  The  judicial  act 
would  thus  be  the  surrendering ;  the  punish- 
ment, the  result  of  that  surrender,  which,  in  any 
case,  would  be  moral  and  spiritual  destitution. 
This,  at  least,  seems  to  be  the  doctrine  of  Rev. 
xxii,  11.  In  these  awful  words  sound  forth  both 
the  eternal  sentence  of  the  Judge  and  the  eternal 
doom  of  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the  eternal  lot 

of  the  righteous.     Moreover,  the  term  "  death  " 
17 


258  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

as  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  signify  the 
lost  condition  of  the  wicked,  and  which  is,  there- 
fore, equivalent  to  "  everlasting  punishment  "- 
the  opposite  of  "life  eternal" — seems  to  teach 
the  same  doctrine.  Eternal  death  is  not  in  the 
extinction  or  annihilation  of  the  soul,  but  in  the 
total  loss  of  the  divine  holiness  and  presence,  as 
eternal  life  is  the  eternal  life  of  God  in  the  soul. 
In  this  deprivation  of  the  life  of  God,  which 
must  be  eternal  death,  is  to  be  found,  it  would 
seem,  the  nature  of  that  punishment  to  which 
the  justice  of  God  surrenders  the  finally  impen- 
itent. Here,  if  anywhere  in  connection  with 
this  doctrine,  might  be  appropriately  quoted 
Gal.  vi,  7,  8,  and  similar  Scriptures,  with  their 
inferential  significance.* 


*  Since  this  chapter  was  written  we  have  met  a  doctrine  the  very 
reverse  of  the  one  just  reviewed.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  Dr. 
Campbell's  little  book,  Unto  the  Uttermost.  It  rejects  the  fix- 
ation doctrine,  and,  taking  its  suggestion,  it  would  seem,  from 
Dorner  (vol.  iv,  p.  424),  makes  the  only  barrier  in  the  way  of 
final  universal  restoration  to  consist  in  the  eternal  and  free 
refusal  of  the  soul  to  be  restored.  Thus:  "The  freedom  of 
man  as  a  moral  being,  and  .his  consequent  responsibility  to 
God,  continue  forever  under  conditions  which  render  response 
to  every  moral  requirement  eternally  possible "  (Preface,  et 
passim).  But  this  is  to  remove  every  barrier  to  universal  resto- 
ration, for  no  soul  can  choose  eternal  hell.  The  Andover 
Review  rightly  designates  the  book  of  Dr.  Campbell  as  "  Res- 
torationist." 


REASON   OR   LAW   OF  PUNISHMENT.       2o9 

2.  Is  the  law  of  necessity  in  eternal  punish- 
ment from  eternal  sinning? 

"  It  is  not  that  the  Judge  assigns  eternal  pun- 
ishment for  temporal  sin  ;  but  that  sin  is  taken 
confirmed  into  eternity.  Non  cessantc  peccato 
nequit  cessare  pcena.  It  is  not  because  man  has 
sinned  only,  but  because  his  nature  is  turned 
away  from  God,  and  he  sins  still.  One  of  our 
Lord's  most  solemn  words  of  threatening  pre- 
diction was  this :  '  Ye  shall  die  in  your  fins'  " 
(Popes  Compendium  of  Christian  Theology,  vol. 
iii,  p.  421).  "There  is  no  eternal  punishment 
but  of  eternal  sinning:  the  eternal  state  of  sep- 
aration from  God  is  both  sin  and  its  punish- 
ment "  (ibid.,  437). 

The  following  is  taken  from  The  Christian 
Advocate  of  October  23,  1884,  in  an  article  en- 
titled "  Eternal  Sinning,"  by  Rev.  T.  H.  Arm- 
strong, Ph.D. : 

"  But  these  are  held  in  eternal  sin  :  such  is  the 
habit  they  have  fixed  about  themselves  that 
they  cannot  but  sin.  Each  new  day  of  eternity 
the  soul  will  darken  with  sin  and  discharge  upon 
itself  the  wrathful  shafts  of  the  nature  of  things. 
The  righteous  Judge  does  not  assign  eternal 
punishment  for  temporal  sin,  but  that  sin  is 
taken  confirmed  into  eternity.  Well  has  one  of 


260  FUTURE  RETRIBUTION. 

the  fathers  said  :  Non  cessante  peccato  nequit  ces- 
sare  pcena.  While  sin  does  not  cease  it  is  im- 
possible for  punishment  to  cease.  It  is  the  sin 
which  the  soul  commits  in  eternity  for  which  it 
shall  be  punished  eternally,  and  not  the  sin  of 
this  probationary  life.  Until  some  one  can  show 
how  the  soul  can  be  delivered  from  sin  in  eter- 
nity, eternal  punishment  cannot  be  denied." 

A  composite  doctrine,  it  starts  with  assuming 
eternal  fixedness  of  character  as  the  ground  of 
eternal  sinning,  and  awards  the  punishments 
— not  punishment — of  eternity  to  the  lost  on 
the  ground  of  eternally  repeated  acts  of  sin- 
ning.* Thus  Christ  will  be  forever  a  Judge 
awarding  to  the  lost  the  just  penalties  of  their 
continual  sins!  Or,  perhaps,  the  eternity  of 
punishment  will  be  awarded  in  the  judgment 
once  for  all  in  view  of  the  foreseen  eternal  sin- 
ning! Moreover,  eternal  punishment  is  not  the 
penalty  for  sins  committed  "  in  the  body  "  (2  Cor. 
v,  10)  ;  but  the  punishments  of  eternal  sinning 
out  of  the  body. 

The  manifestly  anti-scriptural  character  of  this 


*  In  Dr.  Pope's  treatment  of  the  doctrine  estate  is  said  to  be 
sin  (a  doctrine  that  well  accords  with  the  equally  untenable  doc- 
trine of  "  hereditary  guilt  " ) ;  and  for  this  guilty  state  the  pun- 
ishment of  eternity  is  awarded. 


REASON    OK    LAW    OF  PUNISHME.VT.       2(il 

doctrine  makes  it  unnecessary  to  notice  it 
further.* 

3.  We  may  now  turn  to  a  theory  which  is 
thoroughly  scriptural,  and  answers,  as  we  believe, 
to  a  real  necessity.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Methodist  Catechism. 

Question. — "  Why  is  it  right  and  necessary 
that  God  should  punish  sin  ?  " 

Answer. — "  In  order  to  vindicate  his  law,  to 
preserve  his  authority,  and  to  promote  the  great- 
est good  of  his  creatures "  (Catechism  No.  3, 
p.  28). 

The  doctrine  thus  succinctly  stated  finds  its 
fundamental  principles  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
bases  its  conclusions  on  those  principles.  The 
following  propositions  are,  therefore,  quite  self- 
evident. 

(1)  God  is  a  moral  Ruler;  and  as  such  has  es- 
tablished   certain    laws  of  his    government,  and 
affixed  penalties  to  those  laws  as  their  sanction. 

(2)  The    honor  of  God   and  the   good  of  his 
obedient  moral  subjects  are  involved  in  the  con- 
servation of  his  government. 

(3)  Without  penalty  law  could  not  restrain  the 

*  Perhaps  attention  might  well  be  called  to  the  fact  that  he 
who  commits  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  be 
"  guilty  of  an  eternal  bin  "  (Mark  iii.  29). 


262  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

disobedient ;  for  such  law,  if  indeed  it  can 
properly  be  called  law,  would  be  no  more  than 
entreaty  or  advice. 

(4)  Without  law  there  could  be  no  moral  gov- 
ernment over  free  intelligent  beings. 

(5)  Without  government   there  would  be  an- 
archy in  the  moral  universe. 

(6)  God  as  a  God   of  justice,  as  well  as  a  God 
of  love,  could  not  allow  anarchy  to  prevail  among 
his  intelligent  moral  subjects  ;  for  that  would  be 
indifference    to    the     interests    of   those    whose 
choice  is  that  of  obedience  and  holiness. 

(7)  God,    having  created  free  moral   subjects, 
and  having   established  the  principles  of  moral 
government,  is  bound — but  bound  by  a  self-im- 
posed obligation* — to  conserve   his   government 

*  It  is  objected  to  this  doctrine  by  some  that  it  ties  the 
hands  of  God,  and  is,  consequently,  a  reflection  upon  the  di- 
vine almightiness.  Our  reply  is,  Even  creation  is  a  limitation 
upon  God  ;  and  natural  law  as  much  so  as  governmental  law. 
The  limitation  of  creation  (in  which  is  involved  that  of  natural 
law),  which  Pantheism  urges  as  an  objection  to  Theism,  is,  as 
Dr.  G.  P.  Fisher  says,  "  voluntary.  It  is  a  self-limitation" 
and  '•  a  most  free  act,  performed  in  the  exercise  of  benevolence." 
The  same  is  our  defense  of  the  divine  governmental  limitations. 
Moreover,  governmental  laws  inhere  in.  or  are  based  upon,  the 
nature  of  moral  relations.  Moral  law  is  by  reason  of  created 
moral  beings,  and  upon  the  fact  and  ground  of  moral  law  is 
superinduced  governmental  law  :  so  that  the  divine  govern- 
mental law  is  founded  upon  so-called  natural  law  ;  or,  in  oilier 
words,  upon  divinely  established  natural  relations.  Besides,  it 


A' E  A  SON   OK    LAW   OF  PUNISHMENT.      263 

for  his  own  honor  and  the  interests  of  his 
obedient  subjects. 

(8)  The  penalty  that   God   has  affixed  to  his 
laws  as  their  sanction  is  eternal  punishment. 

(9)  The  only  escape  from  that  penalty  for  guilty 
man  is  in  the  atonement. 

(10)  The  atonement  rejected  in  probation  leaves 
the   soul    after   death    to   the   endurance   of   the 
penalty  of  God's  violated  laws.* 

This  is  a  brief  statement  of  principles  which 
need  no  elaboration. 

All  that  was  said  in  objection  to  the  doctrine 
of  steadfastness  of  character  may  be  reaffirmed 
in  the  interest  of  the  present  one;  especially  the 
fact  that  eternal  punishment  is  a  judicially  in- 
flicted penalty.  If  eternal  punishment  were  not 

does  not  relieve  the  matter  to  refer  it  to  natural  law  instead  of 
governmental,  for  God  is  the  author  of  both.  Indeed,  it  ag- 
gravates the  difficulty,  for  there  is  no  reason  suggested  in  the 
doctrine  of  natural  law  for  the  eternal  continuance  of  penalty  ; 
no  reason  why  the  wicked,  for  example,  should  not  be  annihi- 
lated. Still  further.  God  has  governmental  law  in  this  world, 
lie  had  it  in  the  Jewish  theocracy,  has  it  now  among  Christians — 
that  is,  in  the  laws  of  the  Christian  Church — and  has  it  also  in 
the  secular  world,  and  has  always  had  it  (Rom.  xiii).  But  all  of 
this  is  and  has  been  based  upon  natural  moral  and  human 
relationships. 

*  The  same  law  which  required  an  atonement  in  order  that 
God  might  forgive  sin  must  be  the  law  of  necessity  in  the 
eternal  punishment  of  those  who,  in  probation,  reject  that 
atonement.  Both  doctrines  are  one  in  their  philosophy. 


264  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

a  rectoral  necessity  it  would  not  be  represented 
in  the  Bible  as  a  penalty  inflicted  for  violation  of 
divine  law.  Character,  we  have  seen,  is  unalter- 
ably fixed  in  moral  and  spiritual  ruin  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  forever  leaves  the  soul.  In  a  gov- 
ernmental necessity  we  find  the  reason  why  the 
Holy  Spirit  forever  takes  his  flight  and  leaves  the 
finally  impenitent  to  the  natural  consequences  of 
moral  and  spiritual  impotency.  It  is  this  neces- 
sity that  fixes  the  "  great  gulf"  between  heaven 
and  hell.  God  cannot,  consistently  with  justice 
and  the  demands  of  his  government,  justify  the 
guilty  who,  in  the  time  of  probation,  reject  the 
atonement. 

It  will  be  needful  to  ask  and  answer  two  ques- 
tions of  difficulty. 

I.  What  is  the  measure  of  the  intrinsic  demerit 
of  sin  ?  It  is  readily  granted  that  God  could  not 
in  justice  punish  sin  beyond  the  measure  of  its 
deserts,  not  even  in  the  interest  of  moral  govern- 
ment. Such  z'/zjustice  would  be  subversive  of 
moral  government.  Moreover,  it  is  contrary  to 
the  character  of  God.  What,  then,  is  the  meas- 
ure of  sin's  intrinsic  demerit?  Who,  it  must  be 
asked,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  can 
answer  this  question  but  He  who  alone  is  omnis- 
cient and  who  possesses  the  scales  of  eternal 


KEASON   OR   LAW   OF   PUNISHMENT.       265 

right?  In  such  a  matter  it  is  not  for  man  to 
presume  to  answer;  it  is  a  fact  beyond  his  reach. 
If,  presumably,  God  alone  is  able  to  answer  this 
question,  where  shall  we  find  that  answer,  if  it  is 
to  be  found  at  all,  but  in  his  revealed  Word? 
His  Word  teaches  the  fact  of  eternal  punishment. 
Therefore,  we  infer  that  as  God  is  just  and  his 
word  true,  eternal  punishment  is  his  revelation 
to  us  of  the  least  measure  of  the  intrinsic  de- 
merit of  sin. 

2.  The  second  question  relates  to  the  measure 
of  punishment  necessary  for  the  conservation  of 
God's  moral  government.  It  is  not  true  that 
God  must  punish  sin  to  the  full  extent  of  its 
demerit,  or  to  any  extent,  apart  from  rectoral 
considerations. 

"  Nor  has  penalty  any  rational  account  simply 
as  retributive.  It  does  not  so  answer  to  the 
common  moral  judgment  respecting  it,  nor  to 
the  severe  denunciations  of  Scripture  against 
criminal  injuries,  nor  to  the  many  appeals  there- 
in to  instances  of  divine  retribution  as  a  deterrent 
from  sin.  And  for  a  right  exposition  of  justice 
we  must  take  large  account  of  its  strictly  rectoral 
ends  "  (Miley,  Atonement  in  Christ,  p.  222). 

This  being  true,  the  question  recurs,  What  is 
the  measure  of  the  punishment  necessary  for  the 


266  FUTURE   RETRIBUTION. 

conservation  of  the  divine  government?  What 
finite  mind,  again,  shall  presume  to  answer  ? 
This,  also,  is  beyond  the  knowledge  of  man. 
We  therefore  appeal,  as  before,  for  our  answer  to 
the  Scriptures.  We  there  find  the  same  fact  of 
eternal  punishment.  Therefore,  we  conclude,  as 
before,  that  since  God  is  love  and  would  not 
punish  sin  beyond  the  demands  of  his  govern- 
ment even  if  sin  had  greater  intrinsic  demerit, 
eternal  punishment  is  God's  revelation  to  us  of 
the  least  measure  of  punishment  necessary  for 
the  ends  of  his  government. 

Thus  we  have  revealed  from  heaven  the 
answer  to  both  inquiries.  The  one  fact  of 
eternal  punishment  revealed,  in  view  of  the  char- 
acter of  God  and  the  nature  of  justice,  proclaims 
to  us  the  twofold  fact  of  the  eternal  demerit  of 
sin  and  the  necessity  of  an  eternal  penalty  for 
the  ends  of  divine  government. 

The  following  forceful  and  beautiful  statement 
of  truth  from  Dr.  Pope,  notwithstanding  the 
criticism  offered  upon  another  element  of  his 
doctrine,  may  fitly  conclude  this  discussion  : 

"  The  righteousness  of  divine  laws  implies  also 
that  they  are  conformed  to  his  aim  and  purpose, 
and  in  this  sense  right.  It  is  well  to  believe  that 
they  are  equal  and  just  in  their  relation  to  the 


REASON   OR   LAW   OF  PUNISHMENT.      2l>7 

creaturely  nature.  But  that  is  not  all.  They 
must  be  measured  by  another  standard ;  they 
are  right  in  their  perfect  adaptation  to  the  divine 
plans.  Here  comes  in  ourapologyfor  the  divine 
Lawgiver  :  his  own  supreme  theodicy,  or  vindica- 
tion of  himself.  It  is  not  given  us  to  understand 
the  mysteries  of  the  hidden  rectoral  administra- 
tion of  God.  We  must  believe  now  that  it  is 
righteous;  as  we  shall  certainly  one  day  know 
that  it  is.  Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about 
liim :  unbelief  forms  out  of  these  clouds,  and 
writes  upon  this  darkness  innumerable  matters 
of  questioning.  But  righteousness  and  judgment 
are  the  habitation  of  his  throne:  behind,  all  is 
clear,  steadfast,  and  perfect  right.  .  .  .  Ten 
thousand  difficulties  are  swept  away,  rather  are 
obviated,  if  we  remember  that  the  righteousness 
of  God's  moral  government  is  to  be  measured 
not  only  by  the  creature's  nature — it  will  always 
bear  to  be  thus  measured — but  by  the  design 
and  final  end  of  the  economy  of  his  will." 


